Want better resolution, i.e., DETAIL? Go back to film!

I bought a Canon 10D and was dissatisfied with it so I sold it and bought a Canon 20. It was really not much better. My dissatisfaction stems from the fact that with either camera there was the problem of poor resolution which manifested itself when enlarging the image past a certain point. Also I was exasperated by the fact that the colors and contrast were not as compelling as with film. Furthermore, I really hated the fact that after I had shot the picture I was then required to learn how to sharpen the images in Photoshop. The upshot? I am done with digital until there is a 22 mb camera on the market so I don't have to deal with these issues.

My current resolution has been to forget digital for now. I just purchased a Leica R8 with a f.1.4 Elmar lens. I am happy as a chicken who just escaped from Tyson's. Once again all I have to do is scan the images on my Nikon scanner and watch the vibrant colors and the great detail.

Has anyone else out there had the conundrum; if so, how did you solve it?

You don't say much about the lenses you were using, but that's really only half the story anyway. You're right....there is the post-processing issue in digital photography, and it will still likely be an issue even after you come back with your 22mp camera.

It is a very different discipline, and there is a greater emphasis on what happens to the image after it's captured than you ever had or will have with film. Even so, digital has, within its relatively short life, already given photographers far greater flexibility than they ever had with film.

I guess it's just not for everyone.

Good luck with your new camera.

Thank you for your kind response, belmondo. As for lenses. I had a Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM Zoom Lens. Sold everything at a loss but doesn't matter now because I'm a happy camper again. I had no problems with the lens though; it was just that after I had taken a photo I didn't want to have to "sharpen" and boost "saturation," etc.

It's my understanding that when you scan an image and really care about perfection, you still have to go down the same road and do manual sharpening. To me it seems like the best idea would be to select a brand of lens you like then get two bodies one expensive digital and one cheap film one or in your case the reverse and for people with the bucks both a high end film n digi. Then pull out wichever one fits the situation best. As for beginners well I am new to photography and as I learn more I seem to want try my hand a both formats but right now I like/need the historigram plus not worring about wasting film taking lots of practice shots of pointless objects in my room. I always hear the big dibate about one or the other being better but they are just different and each has it's strong point for the situation that arises weather it be, being able to choose ISO on the fly or getting that poster sized print.

I don't think anybody needs to talk him into anything. His mind is made up.

Some people just don't have the right attitude for digital photography.

---Bob Gross---

As far as giving digital another try, I left that option open. Leica is going to market a 10 mb digital back for the Leica R8/R9 in April. I understand though that for a digital camera to produce the same resolution as film, it must be at least 22 mb. Also, I have never had an occasion to "sharpen" a photograph until I started using digital.

I too have no faith in placing my film in labs for processing. I have been developing my own color film for over 20 years; for that reason I do not worry about a stranger corrupting my work. I have the same aversion to labs that you express. Admittedly the putative advantages of digital are numerous: Not having to worry about toting around rolls of film; immediate viewing of a histogram to check exposure; not having to worry about dirt or dust on the scanner, etc, the list goes on. But they are all negated if the finished product does not measure up. I have tried high-pass sharpening and usm sharpening, which can be time consuming: the results have been mixed and inconsistent. I have produced some work that passed muster as far as resolution is concerned, but I also spent an inordinate amount of time doing it.

As far as the usual and sometimes unavoidable problems the are going to crop up, such as color cast and other issues, I am competent to deal with those since I have been using Photoshop since Photoshop 4 came out. I'll never consider myself a Photoshop genius but I do feel that I am capable of dealing witl most issues that arise. Maybe at some later date I will revisit digital but for now I'm sticking to film.

"Some people just don't have the right attitude for digital."

I have been taking pictures for over 20 years and have yet to have a customer complain about "attitude" for a particular method, but they will complain about poor quality.

Film is classic, but no bed of roses. To mix metaphors, film has its own thorns. For artists, it comes down to issues of control over the medium or media. For me, Canon digital gives me more control and plenty enough quality. But if you are happy with film and labs, fine with me. More room for us. Bye bye.

It is actually 11mp and the new 1Ds MK-II will outresolve 35mm and is very close to MF with a digital back. However, even with the 22mp top end digital backs you still have to post-process.

I have been a serious photographer since the 1960's and have come up though various high-end film cameras, my first really decent one being a Leica M3, then switched to Canon when the A1 came out in 1978. I don't miss film one bit and my current digital work is better than anything I did with film. I totally disagree with you regarding the amount of resolvable detail by the way, having had extensive experience with both medium.

I just don't think you are ready. The technology is there now to put film in the dark ages, but if you can't get yourself into the right frame of mind to make the switch then no amount of megapixels will entice you to move over. You either have to make the commitement, or stay where you are, hope they keep making good film scanners and there will be chemicals available to process the films.

The learning curve for digital photography is rather steep and very time consuming if you factor everything in. It can also be very expensive with the add ons and doo dads needed.
Not only is there a sizable investment in a quality DSLR body and matching quality lenses but it can soon be apparent that a new computer and monitor is needed. Monitor with very high resolution and a system with enough "horsepower" to handle the larger files that PS will create. Neither is cheap. After that you realize that a lot of storage is needed and you had better make backups of backups since you do not have negatives.
Just the process of calibrating a monitor/printer/scanne​r can drive a grown man to drink. Getting your head around the workings of PS can cause a cranial meltdown as well.
However all that being said, there are thousands of professional photographers that have tossed film in favor of digital. They range form PJ's for newspapers who really do not need to examine their work under a loupe for details due to the media that it will be presented on, to some some of the best know photographers in the world. Sports to Fine Art and everything in between. Digital is not for everyone, just as not everyone wants to drive a car but would rather walk or use a horse and buggy. You still will get to where you want to go.
There is no denying that digital is the future. The future is here, right now as it has been embraced my the finest in the world. But hey, we all make our own decisions as to where we what to go and how we get there.

Small Correction, 1Ds = 11Megapixels, 1Ds Mark2 = 16Megapixels.

Read my post. Where did I say the 1Ds MK-II was 11mp. I said 11mp pixels would be the same resolution as film. The 1Ds MK-II statement was seperate to this. I happen to know the difference between the two thank you.

My mother alway said "Don't ever argue religion or politics".

To that I would add digital vs. film, what camera/lens brand is best, OEM lens vs. 3rd part, etc.

Too much of a personal thing, formed sometimes by life experience, sometimes a mixture of dogma and faith.

Free will to all, make your own choices and everyone else should respect them.

For me, the current generation of digital has converted me and I won't be going back.

I'm with you, Religion, politics and art, if it turns into an argument just walk away cos you are never going to win, what you will do is lose friends.

It's unfortunate that the "overhead" required to get good prints from digital drove rufis6 away, but at least he's a happy camper now. If you want to turn out nice work then it helps to be inspired, and if your tools are driving you made that can really stop you getting in the zone. Good luck rufis6 and I hope that your tools are supporting your art rather than getting in the way of it.

All the best

BearSummer

Well sorry I mis-read that, but the resolution of film varies on the type of film used, can be anywhere from Velvia 50, to cheapo kodak or others. And I think the quality of Velvia 50 with a sharp lens is going to able to hit above 11Megapixels.

Here is one reasource that kind of shows a chart using spatial resolution.
http://clarkvision.com ….vs.digital.sum​mary1.html

Oh no, are we going to have a digital-vs-film war... ?!

Before I bought my 10D I was using my EOS 30 (= Elan 7E for the USA people), mainly with slide film (I was using Fuji Provia 100F a lot, which is a very good slide film). I was scanning the slides with my Minolta Scan Dual III film scanner.

Just a few weeks ago I picked up my EOS 30 and a roll of slide film again and scanned the slides. I was quite disappointed with the amount of grain, scratches, dust etc. that was visible on the scans.... Maybe the Minolta Scan Dual III isn't the best scanner in the world, but I've never been able to make such smooth, clean and sharp images with my EOS 30 and scanner as with my 10D.