quality of digital vs. film

DrPablo wrote in post #3238335
I truly hate this digital versus film discussion, because it completely misses the point.

1) Resolution CANNOT be directly compared in any quantifiable way -- because film doesn't capture pixels, and resolution is more a function of enlargement factor than of detail per unit area.

2) Dynamic range CANNOT be directly compared in any quantifiable way, because it doesn't take into account exposure-response curves, nor does it take into account the fact that a film user chooses high DR / low contrast film for some situations and a low DR / high contrast film for others.

3) Cost and convenience are user and application specific, so there is no magic calculus

4) As fine art tools, they are completely different in some respects, and completely complementary in others. But pure art requires only that the artist have the tool that fits them best. Digital still doesn't have a direct analogy for traditional and historic printing processes that have tremendous beauty and longevity -- just as film has no direct analogy for Photoshop.

Finally someone sees it correctly. the Film vs Digital debates will never end till you finally realize you are comparing apples to oranges.

I shoot 135 film/digital 120/220 film/digital all for different purposes and end results. Fact of life is... no one thing can cover everything, you can come close to, but not exactly.

5 years ago this was a common enough question.
3 years ago you would see it now and then
2 years ago about twice a year
This is the first time I've seen it in a while. How long before it's put to rest and becomes a "Non-question"?
For 99.999% of the shooting public it really doesn't matter anymore.
How long before a print made from 'film' will be an amusing oddity?
Nostalgia just ain't what it used to be.

Jon, The Elder wrote in post #3248724
Nostalgia just ain't what it used to be.

I wish I could travel back in time, and listen to the "horse vs. automobile" debates that must have been prevalent a century ago. There's nostalgia for ya.

There are things that horses can do, that no automobile will ever do. But not many people drive horses to work anymore, or haul freight with them, or pull plows.

Horses are still around, mostly as a hobby, and sometimes put to work for specialized purposes. But motorized vehicles have definitely replaced them in the mainstream. Most of us would have a hard time finding a livery stable in town. Likewise, film will soon reach the point where it's only used by wealthy hobbyists and those with specialized needs.

Perhaps there are things that film can do, that digital will never do. But it'll be a moot point when you can't buy film, or the chemicals to process it. I reckon film will be around for a long time, but it will get more expensive, harder to find, and with less variety available. Soon, film will occupy the same amount of shelf space at the local drugstore as buggy whips and horseshoes.

Look at how far digital has progressed in the past 10 years. Is there any reason why it shouldn't advance at an equal or greater rate in the next ten? Whatever the answer to the digital vs. film debate is today, we can all agree that digital will eventually outperform film in every way. I'm sure that relatively soon, digital will hit a "glass ceiling" where the limiting factor will be purely the optics. At some point we will be able to record every bit of information coming through a lens with room to spare and will be held back by manufacturing techniques of even the best made piece of glass and the laws of physics.

For now, digital is the best for most all situations. Film can give a few benefits at the cost of many inconveniences; many of which can limit creativity, experimentation, and fun. However, film still has a place in photography; I consider it the romantic side. Film capture is more of an art where digital is more of a science. These “inconveniences” of film can force people to compensate with the substance of their photos; much like, as so many claim, the inflexibility of primes helps drive the creative process.

I have never used film, but I took a photography class where I was the only one with a digital camera. I was amazed and impressed by the differences in style and thinking, both when taking a picture and in post production. I can see why film photographers will continue with film, as it is a much more intimate medium. It requires so much more thought, consideration, and even love to process one print then to Photoshop a dozen digital shots. I’m sure the extra work and challenges makes it that much more special.

That said, I’ll stick to digital. I could never have become proficient in macro photography or IR if I had to worry about every shot I took, and I couldn’t see the immediate results to refine my technique. But it’s a free world, and to each his own. As long as you enjoy the hobby, it doesn’t mater what medium you capture the world’s beauty on.

Thanks Curtis....I just noticed the paradox in my photography subjects and my equipment I use.
Is this where I say "Duh".

Reptile Bob wrote in post #3249124
Whatever the answer to the digital vs. film debate is today, we can all agree that digital will eventually outperform film in every way.

No, we can't all agree on that.

I shoot 8x10 inch film. There are optical features of 8x10 camera-lens systems that are optically impossible with small format and medium format systems. And I'm strongly considering either buying or building an 11x14" or 8x20" camera. I know several people who own 20x24" cameras.

So maybe for an equivalent sensor size digital will outperform film in every way. But I do not believe that we will ever see an 8x10 let alone 20x24 inch digital back that becomes available outside of research applications, that doesn't require tethering to a laptop, that allows direct capture rather than scanning, and that has resolution comparable to equivalently sized film. You might be able to get equivalent resolution by using a billion stitched images, but that is optically completely different than using a single capture -- and you can tell in print.

Furthermore, there are traditional photographic printing techniques that have no digital equivalent. I, for instance, print photographic images using ferric ferrocyanide (Prussian blue, aka cyanotypes), silver nitrate (Van Dyke and argyrotype printing), potassium dichromate / watercolor / gum arabic (gum bichromate printing), and ortholith developers with cadmium-based papers (Lith printing). There are "looks" you can get with Photoshop and digital inks, but it is vastly different than having your own handmade brushstrokes on Japanese kozo paper, into which you have a photographic image made from pure Prussian blue crystals.

For small format photography, and maybe eventually MF photography, I agree that digital will supplant everything except perhaps B&W. But that's not everything...

http://www.alternative​photography.com/proces​s.html

http://unblinkingeye.c​om/

http://www.mamutphoto.​com/index.html

Curtis N wrote in post #3249039
Perhaps there are things that film can do, that digital will never do. But it'll be a moot point when you can't buy film, or the chemicals to process it. I reckon film will be around for a long time, but it will get more expensive, harder to find, and with less variety available. Soon, film will occupy the same amount of shelf space at the local drugstore as buggy whips and horseshoes.

Well, there are several companies including Fuji, Efke, and Ilford that have ongoing research and development and continue to develop and market brand new products for the film market. Even Kodak, which has not figured out how to downsize their film operation, recently released two new Portra films. Efke is one of the most prolific companies at introducing new films; both they and Rollei have just introduced a total of three brand new infrared film formulations. Fuji has not only expressed a commitment to the film market, but they just reformulated and released a new version of Velvia 50, which is probably their most popular film.

No one buys their canvases and paintbrushes at the local drug store. But there was seldom a time when you could buy more than a handful of different films at a drug store anyway. And as for now, there are four stores within a 10 minute drive of me at which I can buy B&W, slide, and print film in 35mm, 120, 220, 4x5, and 8x10, and I can easily get any of them from multiple internet sites.

So the market will certainly shrink, but it's not going to disappear. I can tell you that the number of 4x5 and 8x10 shooters has been almost completely unaffected by digital photography, because there's no digital equivalent for this type of photography. Hence, the demand hasn't changed, and the supply continues.

I'll stick with the 21st Century (and my last post).

Nobel words, but one giant Eulogy so far.

DrPablo wrote in post #3249404
No, we can't all agree on that.

I shoot 8x10 inch film. There are optical features of 8x10 camera-lens systems that are optically impossible with small format and medium format systems. And I'm strongly considering either buying or building an 11x14" or 8x20" camera. I know several people who own 20x24" cameras.

So maybe for an equivalent sensor size digital will outperform film in every way. But I do not believe that we will ever see an 8x10 let alone 20x24 inch digital back that becomes available outside of research applications, that doesn't require tethering to a laptop, that allows direct capture rather than scanning, and that has resolution comparable to equivalently sized film. You might be able to get equivalent resolution by using a billion stitched images, but that is optically completely different than using a single capture -- and you can tell in print.

Furthermore, there are traditional photographic printing techniques that have no digital equivalent. I, for instance, print photographic images using ferric ferrocyanide (Prussian blue, aka cyanotypes), silver nitrate (Van Dyke and argyrotype printing), potassium dichromate / watercolor / gum arabic (gum bichromate printing), and ortholith developers with cadmium-based papers (Lith printing). There are "looks" you can get with Photoshop and digital inks, but it is vastly different than having your own handmade brushstrokes on Japanese kozo paper, into which you have a photographic image made from pure Prussian blue crystals.

For small format photography, and maybe eventually MF photography, I agree that digital will supplant everything except perhaps B&W. But that's not everything...

http://www.alternative​photography.com/proces​s.html

http://unblinkingeye.c​om/

http://www.mamutphoto.​com/index.html

I can completely see where you're coming from, but I disagree slightly on a few points. Obviously there are physical limits to small format sensors that will have problems matching 8x10" or 20x24" film. Most of those limits would be just in the optics as you will inherently get distortion bending that much information into such a small space; whether or not the sensor can capture it all. Where I disagree is the near future viability of such things in the digital realm. Granted a 8x10 sensor with MP's in the thousands would be an awesome feet, but the only thing that would limit its viability would be demand. In the '60s no one thought they'd see a computer outside large commercial and research applications, and a laptop or PDA would have been laughable, but as we moved from vacuumed tubes to transistors and so on, dreams became a reality. It would be naive of us to think that the next generation of cameras will always be using an updated but essentially similar technology as we use today. To say what or how the next cameras will work would be hypothetical, but I see no reason why if digital cameras went from nothing to beating out regular and medium format film in 15 years, then why can’t they beat out the large format films in the next 15, even if it does take a larger sensor. Information storage and transfer technologies have progressed even faster then that of the sensors so it is reasonable that they will be able to keep up as well. Additionally the costs of technology are going down even faster then their advances and there is little reason to see a change in this as well, putting these “super cameras” in the hands of amateurs, hobbyists and professionals alike.

Where I can definitely see a difference is in post processing. Not to say that it won’t be possible to replicate brush strokes or the effect of different chemicals expertly used, but it will most likely be far too complicated and time consuming to be feasible. Much like one could argue you could digitally draw any picture with any effect instead of actually taking it or PP a visual light picture into IR, but why would you? I could see it possible to make an interface that acts as a virtual darkroom where mechanical brush strokes and other movements are recorded digitally and the results reproduced in a form indistinguishable from the original, but again why bother when you can just do the real thing.

So while I agree that there are some aspects of digital that are unlikely to match that of film, I disagree on the reasons. For the more esoteric forms of photography there will be little demand or reason, but those will be the only limiting factors. In the end people do as they do now and work with what suits them best. Probably the more interesting question will be will film and dark room supplies be commercially viable in the future as demand wanes. If not digital will win by default, but it would be sad to loose the personal touch of film.

Bob,

The optical issues with large and ultralarge format photography have very little to do with "bending" and distortion except with respect to wide angles. But these issues are mostly solved even with medium format cameras. I mean the Mamiya 43mm rangefinder lens and the Zeiss 38mm Biogon (both for medium format) are essentially "perfect" lenses -- they have similar designs, and they are completely free of distortion. My ultrawide 90mm lens for 4x5 is a truly perfect lens as well. It's only the ridiculously extreme lenses, like Schneider's 47 and 58mm super angulons for 4x5 that have the kind of distortion you describe (but then again the 47mm lens is equivalent to about a 9 or 10mm lens on full frame 35mm or 6mm on APS-C.

The difference with these large formats is that there is a huge circle of confusion, because you basically don't need to enlarge these images at all (or not very much). The 25 or 30-fold enlargement to take a 35mm image to 20x24 inches is matched by a zero-fold enlargement when doing that with a 20x24 inch negative. So the circle of confusion is much much larger with the larger format, which means that you get beautiful, smooth, gradual transitions between in-focus and out-of-focus areas, and a bokeh that is simply jaw-dropping. Furthermore, the larger formats capture detail so much closer to life size that the prints contain detail manifold greater than the resolution limits of human vision, and between that and the long gradual transitions of focus, tone, and color -- they take on incredible 3D qualities. I maintain that there is no small format camera, including the 1DsMarkII, that can produce an 8x10 print that is even comparable to an 8x10 contact print -- they just have to be seen to be believed. That's not a statement about other plusses of a small format SLR, but I think it goes to show that small format camera development just can't outcompete every aspect of larger film formats.

As for the other things, like alternative processes, these are handmade works of art. You can make things that look similar digitally, but again they're not the same -- they don't have the same textural or refractive qualities. But they don't need to. Acrylics and oils and watercolors and pastels are different artistic media, and so are digital techniques and some very old traditional ones. To be sure the flexibility of Photoshop is unequalled -- but that doesn't mean it's better than a 3D gum bichromate where there is 3-dimensional texture to the image. On the other hand, there are some hybrid processes by which you can take a digital image, print a negative, and use that negative for alternative contact processes like gum bichromates. Pretty cool, and pretty transcendant with respect to this debate!

Some day these silly comparisons will be a thing of the past, and digital enthusiasts will no longer feel the need to predict the demise of film as if it's some rival sports team. They are complementary for many of us, and they should stay that way. I use my DSLR for high volume stuff. I use my Hasselblad for travel and family portraits. I use my 4x5 for architectural and large format color photography. And I use my 8x10 when I want to create the next great American work of art

RIP: Film

We'll all miss you film.

MagentaJoe wrote in post #3250607
RIP: Film

We'll all miss you film.

A shame you feel so threatened by it.

Do you enjoy your toys less if you're not raining on others' parades?

Here are a handful of links for you. Enjoy!

1. Ilford's commitment to film

2. New product from Fujifilm #1

3. New product from Fujifilm #2

4. New product from Fujifilm #3

5. New film company

6. Huge new film lineup from Efke

7. Resurrection of some older film products

8. Best of all, Kodak's investors are telling them to increase film production

You can't deny technology.
It will forge ahead.

This is true for other things, such as cars, CD's, DVD's, computers, trains, planes, MP3 players, dishwashers, etc...

I think Film will always have that Niche market, just like Vinly records, but the vast majority of the public will (and have) move on to Digital.

That's undeniable...

The truth is, the majority of the world could care less about which format is superior, how it can produce better prints at such and such size, etc.

What eventually "wins" is dictated by sales. People will buy what they think is a good product. Digital is practical...and for most people, that's a winning concept...and like it or not the opinions of "most people" is the most important one for companies...

nicksan wrote in post #3251476
You can't deny technology.
It will forge ahead.

I agree with everything you've written (except the comparison with vinyl records!?)

Film is not dead. It's not going away. It's will remain occupying the niches where it excels, and many of these areas are not even on the radar screen for digital companies -- I mean no one is making a digital TLR, no one is making an affordable digital rangefinder, and digital large format is solely in the domain of people who can shoot with a laptop at their side.. So it will always be there for some things, but you're right that there's no reason for 99+ % of the public to be bothered with it anymore.

DrPablo wrote in post #3251570
I agree with everything you've written (except the comparison with vinyl records!?)

Film is not dead. It's not going away. It's will remain occupying the niches where it excels, and many of these areas are not even on the radar screen for digital companies -- I mean no one is making a digital TLR, no one is making an affordable digital rangefinder, and digital large format is solely in the domain of people who can shoot with a laptop at their side.. So it will always be there for some things, but you're right that there's no reason for 99+ % of the public to be bothered with it anymore.

True, film is not dead, will not die, won't go away, and should not go away.

However, in my world of photograhpy it's a moot point, because it already has died.