35mm or med format?

[awp]

Fellow photographers, I need advice. I am currently shooting digital ( 20D), I would also like to shoot film. My thinking is to get a Canon film camera that I can use with my existing lenses. However, a friend advised me to go Med Format. Presently I am shooting existing light, outdoor, minimal studio and indoor. I keep weddings to a minimum, although I love doing Bridal and engagement shoots. My future plans do indeed include a studio, senior portraits dance school students and my own dark room for black & white.
I would appreciate any advise.
Alisha Williams

[lostdoggy]

Saw in market place a nice deal on a mamiya!!!

[DocFrankenstein]

You could do both... horses for courses.

Elans are cheap... When you get an enlarger, get one for MF and upgrade and build a system.

[Digital Prophet]

I was in the same boat as you in that I was shooting exclusively in digital, but wanted to explore film. I considered, and still do, getting an Elan. But it only took one test shoot with a Mamiya RB67 to fall in love with medium format. When I got my transperancies back I was hooked.

If you are really serious about doing portrait work intended for larger prints (i.e. corporate, wedding or engagement portraits) then I think that MF is the way to play. Shooting is a bit more expensive. But the result is more valuable in terms of depth of beauty and cash. Now having said this I think that there is an Elan in my near future because I really want to explore IR portraiture and there is only one commercially available 120 IR film I can find and it costs too much. So I am thinking 35mm for IR.

Of course event photography is still digital for me. The action happens too fast for me to do film.

- Digital Prophet -

[mbze430]

If my 1v HS every breaks, or get stolen. Medium format is where I will go. there is nothing that can give so much joy when looking at your 120/220 negatives/slides.

I would recommend going Medium format as well.

[DaveG]

Fellow photographers, I need advice. I am currently shooting digital ( 20D), I would also like to shoot film. My thinking is to get a Canon film camera that I can use with my existing lenses. However, a friend advised me to go Med Format. Presently I am shooting existing light, outdoor, minimal studio and indoor. I keep weddings to a minimum, although I love doing Bridal and engagement shoots. My future plans do indeed include a studio, senior portraits dance school students and my own dark room for black & white.
I would appreciate any advise.
Alisha Williams

Stay away from film. It's dead and you'll be sending good money after bad. Your 20D will be very close to film quality even MF quality right now. In just a few years - when the capabilities of the S Mark II drift down to the 40D level cameras - you will far exceed them.

Besides it's not just about the quality of the sensor/film. The Fuji S3 is arguably better than the 20D in end quality. But Fuji's way of doing things produces a 25 meg RAW file in the camera. That means click, click, click and then wait 13 seconds for the buffer to clear. How do you shoot a wedding with that? In a studio setting you can check to see that your hairlight fired and that there was no spill onto the subjet's face. Sure you could shoot a Polaroid (at lest until they stop selling P film) but it's incredibly expensive.

Why then would you want to shoot a wedding with slow short prime lenses? I've grown to love my fast, long and super wide Canon zooms. Being locked into a prime lens in a siutaion where you don't have time to switch lenses is not acceptable to me any more.

There is also the fail safe aspect of digital. I KNOW that I've got it. I look at the review screen and I see that my flash fired. Or more importantly that it didn't. Do you think that you'll enjoy that wait until your proofs come back?

As near as I can tell the biggest possible problem that could come frm digital photography would be having a corrupt card. I assume that if you are seeing images on your review screen then it can't be all that corruped. If you aren't seeing them then common sense suggests a change of card. But I do see if the flash fired. I do see that my camera bag is in the shot. I can see that I've blown out the exposure. On and on I SEE what I've done, and the solution to any failure is to try again right away.

There are no such thing as originals any more. One "zero" or one "one" is a good as any other, so when I send a disk into a lab I have no fear anymore that it might get lost. If it does I make them another one. Try THAT with film!

A friend of mine recently dodged a bullet. He was using a Mamiya C330 and a 135mm lens. He had been using it all winter in his studio with strobes and had gotten great results. Then he did a location shot where he used mostly available light. Everything was badly underexpsosed. It turned out that his lens was stuck on 1/500 of a second. With a leaf shutter this was fine with flash but when he changed it too 1/60 it stayed at 1/500.

The next weekend he had his first wedding of the spring and he would have used this lens extensively that day. Instead the day after the failure he went shopping for a digital camera.

By the way I have a complete Mamiya Pro-TL system with three backs, motordrive and six lenses. The last time I used it was last September for my last film wedding - ever.

[PhotosGuy]

I would also like to shoot film. LIKE to? Not NEED to for a client? Sorry to hear that you've been infected! :D Hope you get well soon!
OK, I think I got that out of my system ;)

Random thoughts:
Large format film can look stunning! Depending on the subjects you're interested in, so can digital.
http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/detail.htm

I've shot 35mm up to 8X10" & have never been so happy to get out of the darkroom & see results right away. I can make complex changes in PS in 15 minutes that would take a week using film. If you integrate a lot of film work into your workflow, you may find that there aren't enough hours in the day to do everything that needs to get done. Welcome to what was my world! ;) You will save some money as you can kiss goodbye that weekend away with the wife/GF!

I suggest that you get a used cam, maybe in 2-1/4 X 2-3/4 format & see how it works out for you. If/when you get tired of the workflow, you can always sell it at no loss.
Re B&W: Big advantage is that it's (sort of) easy to process your own & you get just the effect that you want. The best custom labs in my area, & they are very good, could never make the prints just the way I wanted them, even with detailed instructions on a lay-out.
I'd suggest that you get a used enlarger, too. You'll never be able to sell it a few years from now!

Good luck, whatever you decide!

[Digital Prophet]

Stay away from film. It's dead and you'll be sending good money after bad. Your 20D will be very close to film quality even MF quality right now.

I just don't know how it is that a 1.6x, 8 meg sensor enlargement could ever be compared to a 6x7 MF enlargement.

Now would a digital back for my RB67 be nice? Well of course. But 20+ megapixel backs are pricey. So for now a Polaroid back, a good light meter, 120 film and a little patience produce images that drawf anything but the 12 and 16 megapixek DSLR's. This is really just a matter of the right tool for the right job.

35mm DSLR's have a place and perform many aspects of photography better than any medium or large format can. But by the same token there are things that medium and large format cameras do that small format just are not as suited for.

I hate to see any photographer make as unreasonable statement as "film is dead" or "digital is low quality". There is more than enough room in the photography world for both. And, IMO, smart and talented photographers are those that are able to determine which tool is the right one. So I applaud all photographers that explore the boundaries of both mediums.

But I do agree that maybe a smaller MF is a good way to explore the arena. Plus, since there are some pretty good deals on MF cameras in the used market. If you can find a good shop you can get into the format for a reasonable price.

Once you begin to limit your horizon in terms of format then you are effectively limiting your range of deliverables to your clients and ultimately your client list.

- Digital Prophet -

[rdenney]

It would appear from the responses that film=darkroom. That is not, of course, the case.

For much less than the cost of a medium-format digital back, you can buy a medium-format film scanner and a whole used camera kit. If you choose well the lenses will also serve a digital camera. (hint: Pentax.)

Information is information and it is measured in square millimeters. Format is king. Digital sensor allow us to step up a format and maintain the same quality, but beyond that we run into other limitations. My 10D might match a 35mm camera, and a 1DsII might match a 645 (in some ways), but neither will ever match 6x7, 6x9, or large format. For example, I can scan a 645 frame using a Minolta Multi Pro and get an image with a pixel density of 126 pixels/mm (similar to a 10D), but about 39 million of them. Even with the generational loss of going through film, the image quality is superb. 20x24 prints easily supported, etc. And smaller prints will have a look to them that smaller formats (of whatever quality) won't have.

I don't think a photographer is really complete without having at least some experience with larger formats. With film in your repertoire, you can buy some of the scandalously cheap used medium-format stuff currently on the market, and you can build pretty cheaply (by comparison) a view camera setup that will accept roll film. That will give you capabilities you'll never have with a small format camera.

Whether or not it's commercially defensible is a whole other matter, but you did use the word "want".

Rick "who has never lost a negative due to a computer crash" Denney

[DaveG]

I hate to see any photographer make as unreasonable statement as "film is dead" or "digital is low quality". There is more than enough room in the photography world for both. And, IMO, smart and talented photographers are those that are able to determine which tool is the right one. So I applaud all photographers that explore the boundaries of both mediums.

- Digital Prophet -

I meant dead from the perspective that in five years it will be difficult to even BUY film. How long do you think that 220 film will be made? Another year perhaps? Kodak and the Fuji film division are having some very tough times and lets face it the amateur colour neg part of those companies carried their pro divisions for years. And that amateur side of things is going quickly! Once they have no resources to support the pro side of things, it's over, at least the way we know it.

Do you remember LP albums? Remember how many turntables and media existed? Do you also remember how quickly records and then recorded cassettes went away? That is the fate of film.

There were those who were convinced that analog sound from an LP record was better than a CD, just like MF is said to be better than 6-8MP digital. Well on the first play that LP might have sounded better but the hiss and pops of a used record put the lie to that. With film - even MF - I can see the grain that I don't see in digital. I don't have to spend hours spotting images the way I did with scanned negs, and I don't have the expense and trouble of getting the film bought and processed.

Kodak would discontinue some weird and very rare film and there would be a firestorm of protest. I expect Kodak to discontinue ALL of their 5x7 film any day now and with about 90% of ALL their large format film to come within months. The B&W film lines excepting perhaps the T-Max films will be right behind them in all formats. Research will stop on new films if it hasn't already and the supply will trickle to an end. Kodak may well sell off its B&W line to a small boutique, but that'll be the end of it.

Which medium format manufacturers do you have your money on? Hassleblad has discontinued their 500 series film cameras and Mamiya are trying to get their 22MP cameras out of the door so they can survive. Bronica, Contax and Fuji are done and gone in MF. I can't imagine ANY MF company coming out with a new film camera ever again. So why would a film company keep a product that has no future market?

Of course you will still be able to get film for years to come in the same way that you can buy vinyl records or horse saddles for that matter. Just be prepared for very limited variety, high prices and long waits for supply and processing. But as a practical media, film is dead.

[rdenney]

I meant dead from the perspective that in five years it will be difficult to even BUY film. How long do you think that 220 film will be made? Another year perhaps? Kodak and the Fuji film division are having some very tough times and lets face it the amateur colour neg part of those companies carried their pro divisions for years. And that amateur side of things is going quickly!

I would agree with this if we were only talking about the first world. But in the second and third worlds, there is no infrastructure for people to handle digital files, and film is still dominant. After all, in addition to the expensive (for what you get) camera, you also have to have an expensive computer to save the images.

For this reason, I think film will be available for longer than you suggest, but I agree that it will end up a small, niche market. But there are still made fine turntables for those vinyl LP's. Nobody said it would be cheap, heh, heh.

Rick "who thinks image quality will be the first victim" Denney

[UncleDoug]

Of course you will still be able to get film for years to come in the same way that you can buy vinyl records or horse saddles for that matter. Just be prepared for very limited variety, high prices and long waits for supply and processing. But as a practical media, film is dead.

Why is it that some of our clients have asked us to shoot BOTH digital and Med/Large format instead of just digital? I have seen this as a trend as of late from other photographers than I in our area. I have my own oppinions on why this is but will leave them out for now.

As was mentioned earlier, each format, digital or film, has its place and use. Some based on preference and some based on technical limitations.

Film WILL become an "art" over time, just like the "LP junkies".
So people into the "art of film" will continue to use it. I being one of them.
Most of the time, when I'm shooting 35mm, I'll bring both bodies - digi and film. Depending on whats happenin' I'll switch out between shots so I get the best of both worlds.

Leaving the neutral-zone however, there is something about a bad-ass shot on a chrome. The look, the feel.... Still to this day, I have not seen a digital shot that can compare to a drum scanned 6x6, 6x7.

Period.

When we purchase our Tango drum scanner, we got about $50,000 worth of Hasselblad equipment for $2000 :lol: because the guy was "goin' digital".
Man did we score!
Anyway, after using Canon digital for sometime he said to us that he made the biggest mistake he had ever made selling us the Hasselblad equipment.
This guy has exhibited in the Smithsonian twice......

[UncleDoug]

Though of a task where film is far superior.

Long duration time exposures.
Digi can not even touch film with a 43-foot pole held by Stretch Armstrong as far as this goes. :lol:

[PhotosGuy]

Long duration time exposures. I think negative film works better for long exposure blurs, too. Here's an example of about a 1/2 sec blur that came out exceptionally well:

[kellmeister]

I don’t shoot digital but MF film.

It’s true that MF is cheap right now, however you must understand what your post-process is going to be. Are you going to do your own darkroom work? If so, then yes, I would recommend you get into MF. If your wanting to do your own scanning then you may be looking at buying a film scanner which can run 2k. Sure you can buy a used Nikon 8000 for 1k, if you don’t mind buying used digital equipment (I don’t). You can also opt to get a epson 4990 flatbed, although you won’t be able to pull everything out of your negative which is why your shooting MF right?

What I’m saying is that while MF cameras are cheap and abundant little regard is given to the cost of post-production work. If you opt to shoot chromes you are looking at development costs of $5-$10 a roll and drum scans/prints of $30.00. If your willing to pony up the cash for prints over 13x19 then MF may be for you. Since I usually print 11x11 or so using a hasselblad I’m considering digital as I don’t think MF has much advantage over digital at this size.

[JaertX]

I was in the same boat as you in that I was shooting exclusively in digital, but wanted to explore film. I considered, and still do, getting an Elan. But it only took one test shoot with a Mamiya RB67 to fall in love with medium format. When I got my transperancies back I was hooked.

If you are really serious about doing portrait work intended for larger prints (i.e. corporate, wedding or engagement portraits) then I think that MF is the way to play. Shooting is a bit more expensive. But the result is more valuable in terms of depth of beauty and cash. Now having said this I think that there is an Elan in my near future because I really want to explore IR portraiture and there is only one commercially available 120 IR film I can find and it costs too much. So I am thinking 35mm for IR.

Of course event photography is still digital for me. The action happens too fast for me to do film.

- Digital Prophet -

FYI, you can't use IR film in an Elan. I don't exactly know why, but the manual says so. Bummer.

And I agree...film is a dead medium, for your average, every-day, mediocre photographer. Not trying to be all high and mighty about it, I'd consider myself mediocre at best for now, but I aspire to be better. If film was good enough for Bresson, Leibowitz, etc., I think I'll take a clue from them. You certainly have to embrace new technology, but you also have to respect the old.

[mbze430]

You gotta be kidding if you think you can't buy film in a five years. They have so much of it, it will be 10-20 years, and only if the manufacture decides to CUT film. Film is not dead, far from it. Sales of film have declined, but only by 3%. Sales in Europe is up.

Just an example, talking to Fuji. They have enough Velvia 50 to last over 7yrs WORLD WIDE in ALL format. They are going to release Velvia 100 (not 100F) in June.

If you think film is truly dead, you think manufacture would still be releasing film?

If you do go MF, and a hybrid workflow, just make sure you get a nice MF scanner. Because those flatbed epson isn't going to do it justice.

[mbze430]

FYI, you can't use IR film in an Elan. I don't exactly know why, but the manual says so. Bummer.



Because Canon uses a IR sensor to track the advancing of the film. The Elan series doesn't have a protective "ring" around the sensor so it fogs the film. The 1 Series has this, and it protects the IR from fogging.

[UncleDoug]

You gotta be kidding if you think you can't buy film in a five years. They have so much of it, it will be 10-20 years, and only if the manufacture decides to CUT film. Film is not dead, far from it. Sales of film have declined, but only by 3%. Sales in Europe is up.

Just an example, talking to Fuji. They have enough Velvia 50 to last over 7yrs WORLD WIDE in ALL format. They are going to release Velvia 100 (not 100F) in June.

If you think film is truly dead, you think manufacture would still be releasing film?

If you do go MF, and a hybrid workflow, just make sure you get a nice MF scanner. Because those flatbed epson isn't going to do it justice.

Amen!!!!!!!

And I agree...film is a dead medium, for your average, every-day, mediocre photographer. Not trying to be all high and mighty about it, I'd consider myself mediocre at best for now, but I aspire to be better. If film was good enough for Bresson, Leibowitz, etc., I think I'll take a clue from them. You certainly have to embrace new technology, but you also have to respect the old.

And agreed on these points as well.

All I can say is that the fewer photographers there are using film may hurt one portion of my business, but will be a boom to another aspect of it. And in the end will be a good thing over all for my situ, a "pro" who embraces all forms of image capture. (Selfish little so and so ;) )

I look at hybrid/dual workflows as a "hedge fund".

[DaveG]

I would agree with this if we were only talking about the first world. But in the second and third worlds, there is no infrastructure for people to handle digital files, and film is still dominant. After all, in addition to the expensive (for what you get) camera, you also have to have an expensive computer to save the images.

For this reason, I think film will be available for longer than you suggest, but I agree that it will end up a small, niche market. But there are still made fine turntables for those vinyl LP's. Nobody said it would be cheap, heh, heh.

Rick "who thinks image quality will be the first victim" Denney

I have heard this talk about the third world being the last bastion of film & I just don't buy it. First off about 90% of the "third world" is quite modern from the perspective that they have running water and electricity. If they don't, film is of no use to them either. And if they are that poor I doubt if they are running out to buy Tri-X rather than food. By the way how do you process C41 without electricity? How do you make prints?

As for having an "expensive" computer all you need is the CF card and a kiosk at the photo shop. That's what they have to be doing now, going into a shop of some kind to drop off their film. Are there lights on in the shop? If there is electricty, then there can be a kiosk, even without a processor next to it.

Unless the third world photographers are using Pentax K1000's or Nikon FM2's then their cameras need batteries to power up their shutters, and even then those cameras would have no meters. Digital cameras have (mostly) rechargeble batteries and I would think that it would be easier to charge up a battery than to find some obscure button battery (& if it's Silver Oxide not very enviromentally friendly) in Ceylon.

Film is high tech and so is the C41 process that goes with it. It's been around for so long that we forget that it's complicated and requires special equipment, chemicals and electricity. Digital photograph in a lot of ways requires less since that C41 stage is no longer required. A simple Canon 4"x6" dye sub printer may be all that's required to make prints in remote areas AND WITHOUT A COMPUTER!!!

[DaveG]

1) Plan on holding the neg up to the light because when the oil goes, so will the power for your enlarger.

I've noticed that pretty much every film guy never mentions the power requirements and specialized equipment and chemicals that are needed to make their negs into prints. They also seem to think that the devices for printing negs will be as common in ten years as they are today. I think that it will be as difficult as finding a record player right now, and more so due to the complicated chemical and electric infrastructure required.

I went into a local chain drug store the other day and they told me that they had no C41 machine and no way to print negs. They did have three kiosk machines. But they told me that they'd be happy to send film out. Get used to "send it out". From one hour, to next day, to send it to one or two places in North America & see what has happened to Kodachome for an example of that. At some point you just won't be able to get prints from negs. There won't be any optical printers made and when the last one goes ...

Home processing of B&W should continue but buy a lot of spare parts and bulbs for your enlarger,as well as a complete stockpile of chemicals. You also might want to pick up a few extra batteries for your film camera as well. Heck I can't get a battery for a three year old cell phone!

2) Photoshop IS digital photography. Why accept YOUR handicap. If you want to use PS for film fine, but PS and the resultant quality is part of what makes digital so good.

3) I look at digital files all day and I've looked at high grade medium format scans. I can see a lot more grain in the MF than I can see noise in the 6 & 8 MP files. Have you ever actually tried to make a large print with an 8 MP camera? I have a 16x20 bridal portrait that I use to demonstate the quality of digital and it came from my 6MP 10D! The bride's head (and this was a real, done on the wedding day portrait) is physically larger than life size! I did do all of the Photoshop tricks to it. I interpolated it up in 10% increments and I used two layers to sharpen her eyes and such and soften her skin tones. But it's the results that I care about and they are in my opinion better than MF.

[PhotosGuy]

) Plan on holding the neg up to the light because when the oil goes, so will the power for your enlarger. 1 candlepower enlargers!:D

[Poco]

It's funny that everyone keeps comparing Film vs. Digital like LP vs. CD. Get with the times boyz. The CD is dead. It will soon be (as it is already for many) just a delivery format for your mp3 player.

Film vs. Digital is more like the CD vs. mp3 battle. For many, scanning film is popular, just like ripping CDs. Eventually we won't need the CD anymore.

Even if you think that film is better (I don't have an opinion but cannot personally be bothered with it) you have to realize how fast things are moving. How long is that going to last? Think back a few years at how crappy digital cameras were. Think how much better they will be in a few years. Imagine if you will a 1000MP camera that can shoot at speeds between ISO 10 and 128000 with no noise at 100 shots per second. I'm no physicist so I don't know what the maximum theoretical ISO speed (getting enough photons to the sensor) could be, but you get the idea. It sounds crazy, but how far away do you really think that is?

As for the whole third world thing - it is those without the existing technology that are usually the quickest to use new technology. It is the western world that will stick with film long after everyone else has moved on. Think back to the telephone. In the early 80s I think it was, the number of houses in France with a telephone was quite small compared to the US (less than 20% I think). So they decided it was cheaper to give everyone a phone with an "online" phone book rather than print phone books. Only in the last few years have many people in North America stopped using phone books (like me) but even now I suspect that most people still use phone books (they keep givine me more and I keep throwing them out).

[UncleDoug]

1) 2) Photoshop IS digital photography. Why accept YOUR handicap. If you want to use PS for film fine, but PS and the resultant quality is part of what makes digital so good.

Handicap my eye. ;)

Seriously there is no hadicap.
And I like you look at images all day.
Digital files form digi/scan backs & DSLR.
Scanned images from out Heidelberg Tango drum scanner.

Using the tools that best fit the requirements of the task is the way to go.
If your photographic endeavours can be handled by only digital, GREAT. :lol:
But using film is not a handicap, just using a broader tool set to get the best image possible.

[rdenney]

When the oil dries up and the the electricity goes away .. they'll be film. (The battery in my 10s film cam is going on about 3 years old now)

Medium Format is like the the HDTV of the film world. While digital is incredibly convenient, if you compare the two on a stricly quality level (sans the Photoshop), film wins. Digital cams don't have any where near the information capacity as your average 35mm frame.

I'm not too worried about losing power. But I am more worried about maintaining software databases and the standards that keep new software compatible.

I was with you on your second paragraph until the last sentence. I think you are confusing accuracy with precision.

In some ways, film is more precise than even the best digital sensors. But it is not as accurate, and the transfer functions for film are quite a bit noisier than digital sensors at a given ISO.

But both start with the same information (at least when talking about full-frame sensors). Digital integrates it differently, but it's the same information. The integration of information into pixels actually makes digital more accurate than film in many conditions, even if it is a bit less precise.

Here's a more extreme example. I have a Minolta Multi II film scanner that I use for medium format. The scanning resolution is 1128 pixels/inch on medium-format film, and I get about 6 megapixels from a scan of a 6x6 negative. Even with the generational loss, it has more accuracy than images from my 10D, which also has six megapixels, and it looks better even at the same print size. There is more tonal separation and more richness in the information. The reason is just because of what you say: The 6 megapixels from the 6x6 negative are integrating very much more information than the 6 megapixels from the 10D.

Light is neither continuous nor uniform. It's better to think of light as a spray rather than a beam. Let's say we hold spray cans of cyan, magenta, and yellow together and pointed at the same target. With a short burt (not enough to saturate), we will get a range of fine droplets that mix and overlap, and the result from a distance will be a neutral gray. But the closer we get to the target, the more the neutral gray will disaggregate into its constituent components. Now, light is not like cyan, magenta, and yellow droplets, but it is a spray of photons vibrating at a range of different frequencies. We integrate that range of frequencies into a tapestry we call color. The smaller our sample, the less sure we are of the color and intensity. Precision is the ability to take small samples, and accuracy is the quality of those samples. So, at some point, accuracy and precision work against each other.

Thus, I measure information in square millimeters. A 6x6 frame starts with 3136 square millimeters (56x56 on my mechanical 6x6 cameras--we don't need no stinking batteries at all.) 24x36 starts with 864 square millimeters of information. My 10D starts with 345 square millimeters of information. The 10D integrates that information into 6 million pixels, for an information ratio of .0000575 square millimeters per pixel. My Minolta scanner also produces six million pixels, and the information density is .000525 square millimeters per pixel. Note the number of zeros--the medium-format scan has TEN TIMES the information density in each pixel. No wonder the prints look better! As long as I keep the prints small enough so that the precision is adequate, the additional accuracy will make it look better. The precision is only adequate to make prints up to about 10x10.

Now, let's put that onto a print. An 8x12 print from a 10D is an information ratio of about 13:1. (an inch of negative gets spread over 13 inches of print). A 10x10 print from my scanned 6x6 negative has a ratio of about 4.5:1. Thus, each square inch of print has the potential to start with (13/4.5=)nearly three times as much information. As long as we stay within the precision limits (i.e., the pixels are not visible as pixels), the difference will be noticeable. A 1DsII falls in the middle, though it has vastly greater precision. An 8x12 print, which does not need or use that extra precision (i.e., we have to downsample it for this print size), has an information ratio of about 8:1. But because we losslessly integrate that unneeded information into fewer pixels through downsampling, the accuracy is better than with the 10D.

But when comparing to film, it isn't just information density that has to be measured. It's also the accuracy of the medium. Film is accurate in some ways and inaccurate in others. If we think it's more accurate, it's probably because we are more used to the look of it and also because we have optimized our work flow around it's weaknesses. Believe me, I've made plenty of contrast masks for large-format sheet film to try to get its wildly S-shaped response curve to fit into the narrower but still wildly S-shaped response curve of, for example, Cibachrome. Digital is much more linear, and we have to add that characteristic curve back into it if we want that look.

Film is also limited in resolution, and if we look at it with a big enough microscpope we will see that it also records the spray of light with an overlay of the spray of its own grain structure.

But digital is limited also, especially if the pixels get too small to take a big enough sample of light to be accurate. When we downsample a high pixel count into a lower pixel count for a smaller print, we actually integrate pixels together, which is like averaging across samples, and this improves our accuracy significantly.

If we use any medium within its limits, we can get good results. That means I don't make prints from my 10D bigger than 8x12, unless I lower my expectations. Frankly, I was never very happy with prints from 35mm film that were any larger, especially after I gained experience with larger formats.

Both digital and film are limited by the optics we put in front of them. That's why I don't really want sensors that are too dense, because I lose the quality of each sample (less information to start with), and because I go beyond the capabilities of the lens. I think pixels in the range of 6 to 9 microns are about right to get the most from a wide range of lenses. Improveing quality markedly beyond that will required bigger sensors.

So, we have a range of effects. We have the information we start with, the way that information is integrated by the medium, the accuracy of the medium, and the quality of the signal delivered to the medium by the optics. Digital and film are different in the middle two categories, but I think it would be arbitrary to say that one is better than they other. Each has its own artistic potential. In the last category, we see that there is a limit beyond which additional precision does not provide useful benefits. In the first category, however, format is, always was, and always will be king.

Rick "starting a savings program to buy the upcoming Pentax 645 digital" Denney

[rdenney]

I have heard this talk about the third world being the last bastion of film & I just don't buy it. First off about 90% of the "third world" is quite modern from the perspective that they have running water and electricity. If they don't, film is of no use to them either. And if they are that poor I doubt if they are running out to buy Tri-X rather than food. By the way how do you process C41 without electricity? How do you make prints?

Simple. You drop the film in a mailer, and some weeks later, prints or slides are delivered to you. That's how they do it in Europe even now, where transparency film prices nearly always include processing and come with a mailer. That's far easier in a village with power and water but no photo lab than finding a place where you can print from a memory card, or affording a computer and a printer so you can make your own prints. And who makes their own prints for snapshots even in the first world? Do you think it would be easy to find an Office Depot in most places in the third world, one that stocks the 175 different types of ink cartridges needed? But nearly all those villages have a post office.

Do you think poor people are not interested in making photographs? That seems remarkably presumptuous to me.

Rick "who knows of many people even in the first world who live without power and running water, and who still make pictures" Denney

[Poco]

So, we have a range of effects. We have the information we start with, the way that information is integrated by the medium, the accuracy of the medium, and the quality of the signal delivered to the medium by the optics. Digital and film are different in the middle two categories, but I think it would be arbitrary to say that one is better than they other. Each has its own artistic potential. In the last category, we see that there is a limit beyond which additional precision does not provide useful benefits. In the first category, however, format is, always was, and always will be king.

Rick "starting a savings program to buy the upcoming Pentax 645 digital" Denney

Well said.

Did I mention that my 1000MP fantasy camera had a 12"x12" sensor :D?