Film V Digital

Ok its a well known fact that film has more latitude that digital. I'm not absolutly sure about the exact figures, but as I understand it digital has a latitude of some 5 stops and film as much as 11? No doubt I will be corrected on that.

However, with the aid of photoshop, it is amazing what can be recovered from shadow area's, so now including the combination of digital with photoshop manipulation, how does that compare with film?

My guess would be that film would still have to come out on top, but I must admit since going digital, far more success and keepers are made. What are your findings?

Digital 9-10 stops on input and output. (it's a linear device)
Film 12-13 stops on input, 6-7 stops on output.
It's clear that the film has lower contrast then, but preserving highlights better.

This has been debated adnauseum. The film shooters maintain your position while those of us that have moved to mostly digital have done so for very specific reasons. When was the last time that you saw a film shooter be able to get the image to his editors desk within 10 minutes from time of shooting. There are all kinds of advantages on both sides of the debate that it is hardly worth debating.

There are still great advances to be made in the digital world. In real terms, it is still in its infancy. The film manufacturers realize this and if we were privy to their R&D budgets, we would find that they are not spending a great deal on consumer films.

Take a look at these following sites. He puts forth a countering opinion to your assumption.

http://clarkvision.com ….vs.digital.sum​mary1.html

http://clarkvision.com​/imagedetail/dynamicra​nge2/

When I shot film I shot slides. In comparison, shoot digital RAW is much more like shooting negative film because you have much more flexiblilty to correct exosure and change colour balance in post processing/printing.

Both have their advantages and disadvantages. Claiming one is better than the other outright would be ridiculous.

Most people can move over to digital without worrying about a loss of quality, and certainly gain a lot of control over the final product to boot.

35mm film, and surely medium and large format film, however, still has a place. Personally I think the end product at high ISO is much better on film than on digital.

I should also note that I use a Canon AE-1 Program as my film camera. This thing is about 20 years old and still working like the day it was made. Digital technology demands that one always update equipment.

The above is true.

I shoot both. I shoot depending on the situation.

In the comparison SSIM has posted he's comparing 1Ds to a KODAK GOLD?

Why not a black and white film? Exposed for the shadows?

Why not the usual film? Exposed for the shadows?

Why is he assuming that his 12 bit scanner can actually read off the dynamic range of the negative?

Put the emulsion into the enlarger, then print off it with a 00 paper and you'll see a difference in the dynamic range.

When digital cameras stop giving noisy shadows in print... then maybe we'll get 8 stops of "useable" dynamic range.

PS: As you can see I'm biased towards optically printed film.