When does digital beat film?

airfrogusmc wrote in post #5463537
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.

Give it some time and we'll be using laser printers with specialized paper that will be creating 3-D prints.

I do agree though that my major shortfall is the ink and paper even though I use Epson K3 archival inks with some of the finest papers.

I think that using the photographic papers may have advantages, but the topic was the film in the camera verses digital IQ. I think paper and ink verses silver halide crystals is a whole different subject.

cosworth wrote in post #5463509
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.

I read your linked page and it seems to compare a digital camera to a scanner not film. Have you seen Ilford Pan F 50 ISO film printed by a good quality lab? It is infinitely nicer at any size than the very best digital MF backs I've seen.

The only reason film is dying is because of the speed and convenience of digital. At the moment I've yet to see a digital sensor beat the very finest emulsion and a highly skilled lab tech.

In the real world of amatuer photographers, PJs with deadlines and fashion photographers with big mouthed editors breathing down their necks, digital is the only choice. However, if time is not a factor and you want the very best image quality, then currently nothing beats chemicals and years of developing and printing exprerience. Unless you want to photoshop something to within an inch of it's life of course.

RandyMN wrote in post #5463594
Give it some time and we'll be using laser printers with specialized paper that will be creating 3-D prints.

I do agree though that my major shortfall is the ink and paper even though I use Epson K3 archival inks with some of the finest papers.

I think that using the photographic papers may have advantages, but the topic was the film in the camera verses digital IQ. I think paper and ink verses silver halide crystals is a whole different subject.

Randy its all part of the process. The print is the finished product and just as important as exposing and what media the images is captured on.

I've been hearing that same thing about digital printing for 10 years now.

B&W is not digitals strong suit. (yet)

HankScorpio wrote in post #5463623
I read your linked page and it seems to compare a digital camera to a scanner not film. Have you seen Ilford Pan F 50 ISO film printed by a good quality lab? It is infinitely nicer at any size than the very best digital MF backs I've seen.

The only reason film is dying is because of the speed and convenience of digital. At the moment I've yet to see a digital sensor beat the very finest emulsion and a highly skilled lab tech.

In the real world of amatuer photographers, PJs with deadlines and fashion photographers with big mouthed editors breathing down their necks, digital is the only choice. However, if time is not a factor and you want the very best image quality, then currently nothing beats chemicals and years of developing and printing exprerience. Unless you want to photoshop something to within an inch of it's life of course.

Good quality lab man you need to be doing that yourself and the real magic is in large format zone system for B&W. Archival processed B&W fiber based prints.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #5463706
Randy its all part of the process. The print is the finished product and just as important as exposing and what media the images is captured on.

I've been hearing that same thing about digital printing for 10 years now.

B&W is not digitals strong suit. (yet)

I still love the having my printer instead of the chemicals.

So you choose a cellulose acetate to allow you to burn on silver halide crystals. You know some audiofiles still insist on a phonograph playing a record being connected with a tube amplifier just for the pursuit of perfection.

No one can argue that it's not better for certain applications for the purist.

When comparing film to digital there are to many variables..When people think of film most think of 35mm..How many people here have printed a B/W off a 5x4 inch negative?? How many people have printed off a 50 iso Ilford PanF 5x4 inch negative?? Believe me there is no way digital comes even close to the tonality, acutance and detail reproduction of a print reproduced off a 5x4 inch negative..It is like comparing apples to oranges..

Digital can be compared to 35mm negatives but B/W still has the edge just for sheer dynamic range,,in my day it was called brightness range..Kodak TriX 400 can have a brightness range of upto 6 stops if exposed and processed carefully..This would exceed the dynamic range of digital??

While we are throwing numbers about I heard or read somewhere a 35mm colour negative can hold upto 72MB of information..

For sheer convenience digital beats film any time..

airfrogusmc wrote in post #5463731
Good quality lab man you need to be doing that yourself and the real magic is in large format zone system for B&W. Archival processed B&W fiber based prints.

I do my own B&W and C41/RA4 but I can't get anywhere near the quality that a pro lab can especially with C41. I had 3 images done at A0 size from 35mm by a top quality lab that does exhibition prints for pros, they had a month long waiting list and a price tag to match but the quality is truly breathtaking.

I think that in cases where you need the best quality, and you have the time that film may be better, but when I am here in Iraq there is about a month difference between sending my wife a digital image and sending her a print from film, so I will use a digital camera every time.
As for the difference in B&W prints has anyone tried the silver based B&W service from mpix? Is it worth it? http://mpix.com/truebl​ackandwhite.aspx

Stocky wrote in post #5464024
As for the difference in B&W prints has anyone tried the silver based B&W service from mpix? Is it worth it? http://mpix.com/truebl​ackandwhite.aspx

Actually, I just got two 16x20's done on the ilford paper at mpix. I have to say that I was very, very impressed. It is as close to a B&W print as you can get without getting your fingers wet.

No matter how this debate turns out..
I will never touch the film again.

I will only reconsider the film camera again, when it has a LCD for a quick review, has histogram to help me calculate the proper exposure and has capacity of 400+ shots without needing to change the film. It should also allow me to delete the shot I just took, so that I can retake the shot as I please. It should also allow me to change the ISO on the fly, so that I can shoot in bright daylight and then walk into indoor (like church for example) and shoot in low light environment without the flash.

I don't believe the whole photography thing is just about resolution and dynamic range. (For that matter, dSLR does very well in both aspects and often more than enough) It may vary depends on your taste and what you do, but you can not neglect the fact that how convenient these dSLRs are now days. These new perks we get from today's dSLRs are pure magic compare to the old film SLRs.. and that is why majority of us currently own dSLR instead of the film counter part.

I believe the day you picked up the dSLR over the film SLR, is the day the digital beat the film.

Excellent post.

It's also environmentally better only from the chemicals produced and film stock production as opposed to far less printing and memory cards/cd-dvd/hard drives/web viewing. The real carbon footprint from shooting digital must be lower, but I wouldn't expect it to be "incredibly" lower.

Back in 2000-2001 when the D30 first came out, it was claimed that IT beat film already. I think it was Luminous Landscape that said that, or came just short of saying it in one of the reviews. And that body was only around 3MP.

Yeah, they said the 1Ds Mk.I almost beats medium format film.

cosworth wrote in post #5464377
Excellent post.

It's also environmentally better only from the chemicals produced and film stock production as opposed to far less printing and memory cards/cd-dvd/hard drives/web viewing. The real carbon footprint from shooting digital must be lower, but I wouldn't expect it to be "incredibly" lower.

And as someone that eschewed tongs and couldn't keep his greasy fingers out of the soup, I appreciate the lessening of toxins in my body as well.

As far as color goes and convenience digital all the way. I never had the control in the color darkroom that I now have with digital but large format B&W zone system rules B&W imaging and will continue to rule until digital can produce the same qualities that are found in platinum or silver gelatin prints. The proof, just look and see where the bars been and set buy seeing photographs printed by Adams, Weston, Sexton (not on the computer or in books but actual prints and the best would be viewing their actual portfolios) and you will immediately see why most of the real serious landscape photographers still shoot large format B&W.