When does digital beat film?

So, You talk about resolution, What about Dynamic Range ? Is that BEAT film yet ?

=)

Surely it's down to the quality of your negative scanner as well (if, I presume you're comparing digital with digital)

As far as I'm concerned, digital and film are now about equal for apparent image quality, but somehow B/W film shots provide more "atmosphere" its a personal thing. Also the its personal preference whether you like the grain or not at higher isos.

Even the highest resolution medium format digital back is no match for the finest grained film even at 35mm. Digital cannot beat it on resolution, colour range or dynamic range.

It will one day but that day is not today.

Dynamic range is probably the last bastion where film will be overrun by digital.
A camera like the Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III is already breathing down the neck of good quality medium size film, in spite of the 1Ds being "only" 24*36 mm.

For the Point and shoot fraternity it passed film a long while ago.

For the serious user it is all more contentious.
Any camera that can produce a superb 10x8 when viewed in the hand will provide an equally superb poster when viewed at the appropriate distance.
This was true of film and it is equally true of digital.

However Digital has made some areas of interest its very own stomping ground.
High Iso sports photography
News /reportage.
Panoramic Photography.
Hdr photography
Tone fusion
Focus fusion
special effects
Correction of lens distortions
Correction of perspective distortions.
correction of white balance
correction of CA and fringing.(these were always problem areas but there was not much to be done about it)


All these Issues effect quality in one way or another and any one of them can be critical .

I for one find my strike rate is higher with Digital than film, and I am a very experienced retired professional who use film all my working life.

I do not think many novices would care to give up the advantages of Digital for any supposed quality advantages with film, which in their experience would be a non issue.

It would also depend on whether you are trying to compare colour negative film, colour reversal film, or black and white.

For enlargements and detail preservation, a 30D can surpass C41 prints. Part of its advantage is that you can adjust the colour saturation, sharpness, etc. to be optimized for the print.

As for black and white: digital still has a long way to go before it can surpass it. It's not exactly a fair comparison as a B&W frame is basically binary: grain is black or grain is white. With colour film you have layers and each layer is binary to a particular colour.

Digital beats film when you start using wholly digital cameras and stop using film.

In all seriousness, this is a hotly debated topic. As higher resolution cameras emerge, the benchmark is raised. Resolution and dynamic range is one thing, however we also need to consider the sheer convenience of digital. The instant results, ability to review the result on the spot using the same camera (ie. no need for a Polaroid back for 'test' shots before using your 'real' camera) and ability to edit at the computer without having to go into a dark room with chemicals and a red light...

Doesn't convenience pay a lot of dividends in its own right?

Personally, if I shot the way I currently do with a film camera, I would have fried my wallet dry with all the film I had to buy, the developing, the scanning etc. Previously I owned a 350D for only 12 months, and in that time I'd already taken photos to the equivalent of over $1000 worth of film. With my current camera and at least the last two casual wedding shoots, I hate to imagine how much that would have cost me in film.

That said, I love the feel of the old film cameras and would like the chance to try something like a Leica M series rangefinder and some of their lenses. A film rangefinder is at least reasonably-priced compared to the digital equivalent, for the M series, or the Epson one at least.

The amount of resolution each photographer needs will vary greatly, but for most of us even the run-of-the-mill models will suffice. On occasion I look at 8 or 11MP images taken using a good quality lens and I am absolutely in awe at the quality and resolution. Yet there's super-duper high-resolution cameras out there like the 1DsIII, the Leaf MF backs etc. The run-of-the-mill stuff is certainly good enough for my photographic applications. The only reason I would want more than that is because I'm a gadget freak.

I reckon from my own experiance that my 30D can equal film at ISO100, and beat any fil at ISO above that.

Even ISO3200 is more useable than the film version.

Haven't touched film since getting a 30D. What's the point when I get edit my photos before printing, and don't need to scan.

Just reading this thread shows how much this subject is debatable.

From my own experience I agree with those who state that digital already has equaled and surpassed 35 mm format. I think those stating 15 Meg and above is what is required, I think at that point your beginning to equal and pass medium format.

I would not go back to film just because digital offers so many advantages and from every blow up I've done I have seen nothing that states my film taking days offered better results.

jiggling_john wrote in post #5462717
As far as I'm concerned, digital and film are now about equal for apparent image quality, but somehow B/W film shots provide more "atmosphere" its a personal thing.

I shot B&W a lot back in the day. Sure I sucked, but my digital B&W conversions today are indistinguishable from film. I've taken the time to learn how to go beyond pressing "convert to grayscale". I'm quite happy with how digital converts to B&W.

HankScorpio wrote in post #5462825
Even the highest resolution medium format digital back is no match for the finest grained film even at 35mm. Digital cannot beat it on resolution, colour range or dynamic range.

It will one day but that day is not today.

Go back to page one and read my link.

With your logic the top shooters of today should drop their $35000 cameras and pick up a Canon EOS rebel and pop some 35mm Fujifilm in there? Have you seen a 35mm film image blown up 40 feet high recently? No. It's medium format and most have switched to digital backs.

35mm film is dead. Medium format is at least on permanent life support. I have to drive rather far to find 120 film these days.

Did no one read the link I posted?

Grentz wrote in post #5461640
http://www.clarkvision​.com ….vs.digital.sum​mary1.html

It gives a very interesting look at all this stuff, in this guys research digital actually has MORE dynamic range than film.

He also has an interesting look on the subjective quality that different people will say is better IQ. Depending on what the person likes/prefers subconsciously, it could be the film or could be the digital look that they prefer.

nontetheredbrain wrote in post #5461564
When you shoot B&W.

Thats the one area (B&W) that digital is still not close. One thing that still gives film its edge is silver....
Another thing is tonal range if processed properly is greater on film.
I have yet to see an ink jet print come close to a beautiful zone system print for large format. Tonal range and just the way the silver (or platinum) reflects the light back to your eye has a mojo that a digital print hasn't come close to.

Grentz wrote in post #5463527
Did no one read the link I posted?


It gives a very interesting look at all this stuff, in this guys research digital actually has MORE dynamic range than film.

He also has an interesting look on the subjective quality that different people will say is better IQ. Depending on what the person likes/prefers subconsciously, it could be the film or could be the digital look that they prefer.

Even if there is more range in digital which I have yet to see good science to bare out that there is more definition and dynamic range in digital compared to an 8X10 black and white negative thats been shot and processed CORRECTLY the one thing digital still lacks is the magic that silver has in a B&W print and the way it reflects light back to your eye. Paper and ink just don't have those qualities.

Jason, I tend to agree with everything you said. I remember reading the ASMP architectural forums 4 years ago. Many of them had switched to 1Ds and TS lenses as a substitute for 4x5. They said they had made comparison prints for clients not telling them which was which. The majority of the clients chose the 1Ds picture.

Grentz wrote in post #5463527
Did no one read the link I posted?


It gives a very interesting look at all this stuff, in this guys research digital actually has MORE dynamic range than film.

He also has an interesting look on the subjective quality that different people will say is better IQ. Depending on what the person likes/prefers subconsciously, it could be the film or could be the digital look that they prefer.

I read it. Thanks, it contains a lot of information.