When does digital beat film?

TheHoff wrote in post #5468842
I know the comparison was brought up in the thread already but it is funny how much this debate mimics audiophiles discussing phonographs vs. CDs (or tube vs. solid-state).

Yep. So far no bloodshed here, though...

Pasukun wrote in post #5464327
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.

And you could add (among a host of others):

"changing the colour temp in an instant without opening up the back of the camera".

"adjusting the intensity of various colours individually during processing - and being able to do it a multitude of ways on the same image".

I'll say one thing about film... It certainly isn't dead because there's a LARGE population out there that hasn't made the leap yet and many likely never will. For one, think of all the older folks out there that don't even have a PC, let alone are digitally savvy. There are others who just don't care and/or want "instant" results via photolab. Some can't afford digital.

Think about it, we're all naturally a little biased since we're heavily into photography and we all use computers to hang out here at POTN. Take a poll in the local mall and I'm sure you'll find that film still has a following. Some people just want to take pictures, go by the 30-minute photo lab and come home with duplicate prints so they can easily share with friends. For us, no, we have to peep, PP, color correct, print... Or email someone a link to our image. Yeah... I don't see grandma doin' that.

Personally, I'll always love B&W film. Gimme a roll of Ilford or everyone's favorite, Tri-X any day. But... If the end result is going to be digital it makes little sense. By the time you scan it in, clean up the image and what-not - the quality and feel isn't the same anymore. Plus I just don't have the time for a darkroom anymore. Nevermind the expenses involved. So I guess personally, film is a nostalgic memory and something "I want to get back into for fun."

Double Negative wrote in post #5470213
I'll say one thing about film... It certainly isn't dead because there's a LARGE population out there that hasn't made the leap yet and many likely never will. For one, think of all the older folks out there that don't even have a PC, let alone are digitally savvy. There are others who just don't care and/or want "instant" results via photolab. Some can't afford digital.

Think about it, we're all naturally a little biased since we're heavily into photography and we all use computers to hang out here at POTN. Take a poll in the local mall and I'm sure you'll find that film still has a following. Some people just want to take pictures, go by the 30-minute photo lab and come home with duplicate prints so they can easily share with friends. For us, no, we have to peep, PP, color correct, print... Or email someone a link to our image. Yeah... I don't see grandma doin' that.

Personally, I'll always love B&W film. Gimme a roll of Ilford or everyone's favorite, Tri-X any day. But... If the end result is going to be digital it makes little sense. By the time you scan it in, clean up the image and what-not - the quality and feel isn't the same anymore. Plus I just don't have the time for a darkroom anymore. Nevermind the expenses involved. So I guess personally, film is a nostalgic memory and something "I want to get back into for fun."

Just think of how much of the world does not have computers in most households, access to printer supplies, etc. etc. and you will have an idea of the continued value of film for those people. It is easy to accumulate film until the weekly mail carrier comes and drops off mail and picks it up.

The only time I really enjoy the benefits of digital over film is when constantly switching between ISO.

I often find myself switching between ISO 100 to 800 or 1600 over the course of the day and tend to leave ISO 400 in my 35mm camera. Also the instant review of digital has been great althought I still cannot falter the use of film. Providing you use the right film and look after it, images will be just as great.

Double Negative makes a lot of good points, I just want to add that there are photographers who just love the old process of exposing and printing film for it's own sake. Some are the equivalent of Civil War buffs who have antique cameras and coat their own plates, using almost lost formulas. We should respect them for what they are, preservationists. Not many, including myself would to to all that trouble to take a picture. On a site dedicated to film photography I saw digital cams called "alternative imaging devices you can't put film into". All tongue in cheek of course.

Actually it has been a trip down memory lane for me visiting those sites and seeing names of lenses and cameras long forgotten. Frankly, not seeing a bunch of "L" this and "EF" that has been refreshing. I have a new appreciation for photography as a result of reading posts from people who take film photography so seriously. We are all photographers, regardless of what process we may choose.

^ All very true!

I guess some day I hope to use film again... I haven't (likely never will) given up on my A-1 and FD lenses and considered selling them. What is odd, is that I want to pick up a film body like a 1n or 1v just to have one for my EF lenses. Don't know when I'd actually shoot film (other than for pure enjoyment) but I still want one.

Part of me even wants medium format gear again. Nostalgia at its finest!

Double Negative wrote in post #5470213
I'll say one thing about film... It certainly isn't dead because there's a LARGE population out there that hasn't made the leap yet and many likely never will. For one, think of all the older folks out there that don't even have a PC, let alone are digitally savvy. There are others who just don't care and/or want "instant" results via photolab. Some can't afford digital.

Think about it, we're all naturally a little biased since we're heavily into photography and we all use computers to hang out here at POTN. Take a poll in the local mall and I'm sure you'll find that film still has a following. Some people just want to take pictures, go by the 30-minute photo lab and come home with duplicate prints so they can easily share with friends. For us, no, we have to peep, PP, color correct, print... Or email someone a link to our image. Yeah... I don't see grandma doin' that.

Personally, I'll always love B&W film. Gimme a roll of Ilford or everyone's favorite, Tri-X any day. But... If the end result is going to be digital it makes little sense. By the time you scan it in, clean up the image and what-not - the quality and feel isn't the same anymore. Plus I just don't have the time for a darkroom anymore. Nevermind the expenses involved. So I guess personally, film is a nostalgic memory and something "I want to get back into for fun."

What you said is absolutely true, but you do not have to know how to post process or own a computer or printer to use the digital camera in these days.
Things have gotten much easier to use the digital camera, and people are coming around. Slowly but Surely.

I for one showed my retired parent and the others how to use the digital camera. And most of them do not own a computer.

I simply told them to..
"Keep the dial in the Green Box and watch the LCD then press the button. When you are ready to develop the picture, just take the card out(or the whole camera) and take it to the local Wal-Mart or Walgreens and they will take care of you."

Many of of them even knows how to hook it up to the TV and see the slide show on the screen. (They absolutely love this feature!)

If anyone ever used a film camera before.. Digital camera is no brainer for them. You can take the pictures and develop them just the same as if it was film. (I am talking about the basic stuff for average people) All that is changed is film to media card and extra LCD screen. They can forget about other features, if it gives them headaches.

IMO....digital has it all without question.
If you need more resolution, it is available.
Noise is lower at high ISO.
Ease of use.
Only bad thing is....when we blast ourselves back to the stone age, it will be impossible to see any of our digitally stored images.

Quality is about output.

For most people's output, which is web-sharing and small enlargements of color images, there is without a doubt no reason to use 35mm film over digital.

For more nuanced needs, including the optical advantages of larger formats (i.e. long tonal gradations), and the specific character of certain film types, then film absolutely has advantages under certain circumstances. B&W is most often cited, but for color I would take Astia, Provia, Velvia, E100VS, and 64T over any digital device (with output being a good scan -> digital print or a cibachrome). I am a fan of color negative films as well, though, including higher ISO ones like ISO 800 Fuji NPZ (which is great when shot at ISO 1600).

Large format shooting also affords perspective control (in a way TS-E lenses can't dream of) and contact-printed alternative process output that are irrelevant to most people but irreplaceable to some.

Finally, there is much more diversity in camera types and shooting styles with film. One of the shames of digital photography is that most people will never have the opportunity to choose between rangefinders, view cameras, multi-format cameras, TLRs, folders, etc. And the glass has gotten much more restricted too -- I'm happier with my Schneider lenses on 4x5 and 8x10 and my Zeiss lenses on medium format than with Canon L-glass on 35mm film or digital.

DrPablo wrote in post #5471476
Quality is about output...I'm happier with my Schneider lenses on 4x5 and 8x10 and my Zeiss lenses on medium format than with Canon L-glass on 35mm film or digital.

That's so true. What stood for 35mm back then still holds true today. Medium and large format are better... Price obviously plays a huge part whether film or digital so medium/large formats especially with digital backs are pretty pricey, so people still tend to gravitate towards 35mm. But at least the resolution of lenses and sensors is steadily improving.

I learned my lesson that people still shoot film... the other day I was handed someone else's Canon to shoot a photo of them in front of a bit of scenery in Italy. I composed, focused, and fired off a few frames to make sure I got a nice picture without blinking. I looked down to chimp the image and... surprise! It was film and I wasted someone else's frames! It is easy to forget that some people still pay per image when you're now used to frames being free...

I handed someone my Leica M3 to take a photo of me grinning like a moron next to a model at a car show, They had no idea how it worked. To be fair I shouldn't have expected them to know but I did and I made them learn too

Pasukun wrote in post #5470776
I simply told them to..
"Keep the dial in the Green Box and watch the LCD then press the button. When you are ready to develop the picture, just take the card out(or the whole camera) and take it to the local Wal-Mart or Walgreens and they will take care of you."

Many of of them even knows how to hook it up to the TV and see the slide show on the screen. (They absolutely love this feature!)

If anyone ever used a film camera before.. Digital camera is no brainer for them. You can take the pictures and develop them just the same as if it was film. (I am talking about the basic stuff for average people) All that is changed is film to media card and extra LCD screen. They can forget about other features, if it gives them headaches.

That's almost as easy as shooting film in the first place, except the film is more tolerant to under/overexposure and the labtech can correct it easier, giving you better prints.

Now that I sold my digital cameras, I don't really complain about the cost. I buy expired color film for pennies and shoot it composing carefully. All of my stuff comes out the way I previsualize it. I just dropped off a roll from a new stylus epic which I've been shooting for the last six weeks. The development and two sets of 5*7 proofs cost me 8 bucks. That's cheaper than shooting digital and printing 50 images of that size!

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #5472915
....a new stylus epic ...

That's what I used to shoot