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

I would like to thank all of you who responded to my post. Your comments are appreciated; I did not intend to come across as a one who blindly restricts himself to the "Good ol' days." My remarks were, as I stated, intended to ascertain if there are others out who have had the same experience and how they dealt with it. From the responses it seems I am alone in reaching the conclusion to revert to film. I did not close the door on digital conclusively; as I pointed out, Leica is in the process of marketing a 10 mp digital back for the camera I now have. I would like to state that my conclusions were in no way affected by "attitude" or "frame of mind." I am a pragmatic person and I formed my opinion based on results and the steps required to reach those results. Again, thanks to all of you.

A special thanks to KB244 for providing the excellent article on this very subjest: http://clarkvision.com​/imagedetail/...l.summ​ary1.html

I had a similar conundrum with color TV. The Plumbicon tubes came nowhere near the resolution of the B&W 4 1/2 inch Image Orthicons. Fortunately I didn't solve it by throwing out my color TV.
I see in the B&H ad, if you have a spare $8,000 you can get close to your goal tomorrow by ordering the Canon EOS 1DS Mark II, 16.7 Megapixel, SLR, Digital Camera (Camera Body)-- temporarily out of stock.
Of course, you would still need a lens . . .
Jim

I belive this is a big myth. Most people talk about qualilty of digital cameras in megapixels when it's a combination of megapixels AND sensor size. You could have a very small sensor packed to the brim with 22MP but what good would that be? You could then have a huge 100x100mm sensor with 22MP but the pixels would be large. Digital photography is a vastly different world than film. I'm considering getting into film photography to see "how it used to be", and so I can use my lenses at their given focal length.

Rufis:
Seems a fair discussion to share experiences. I was so frustrated with first generations of digital toys in the 1990s that I stayed with 35mm. Then when all my gear, macro lens, flash, and all was stolen in an airport, I still waited then went Canon digital SLR.
Many times I wanted to go back to slides, or at least get an EOS 3 with a spot meter to complement digital. Then after about 8 months of study, reading, experimenting, and frustration, I finally came to a decent understanding of Canon metering specifically, and generally how metering digitally is closer to slide film than negative film. Then I studied EOS E-TTL flash. Then I got an EOS 20D with a joystick focus point and some L glass and ALL PREVIOUS CONCERNS for digital limitations died.
My exposures are the best in my life. The flexibility, ease, and power offered by post processing negates most film benefits. The ability to pull out shadow detail, the image quality retained after cropping, the grain-free smoothness of large mono-tone areas, like skies, and learning to use a histogram as a true 21st light meter are functional joys.
As a comparison I have scanned over 600 slides using a decent quality Nikon L5000 scanner. It introduces softness no less than digital. And using PhotKit Sharpener with its built in digital AND 35 mm sharpening routines has completely eliminated sharpening as a workflow issue for me anyway. Best $99 add-in spent in terms of hours saved and quality raised. Any theoretical benefit offered by film resolution is lost for all practical purposes in low-to-modert end scanning. (I'm not comariing with medium format drum scanned for $35-$50 an image!
For 95% of what I need, film is over. I can only think of three reasons I retain any 35 mm film interest.
1. For $400 I can get a used EOS 3 with a full, bright, near 100% viewfinder, faster autofocus, a spot meter, and usability under adverse weather. This compares with a wonderful 20D, with less ruggedness, for $1,400. If those features are needed at a low price point (1/10 of a 1D MkII), can beat film camera prices these days.
2. With an old rugged 35mm camera like an Oly OM-1 or OM-4 I can put it in a bicycle pannier, go on trip, and shoot for weeks, months, on a set of batteries. No worries. No CF cards, no cords, no nothing. Digital does tether a user to technology and batteries.
3. Exposure latitude of negative film for event photography under rapidly changing lighting. But even here, once I got over frustrating learning curve and learned digital well, it trumped and killed film use because the ability to shoot RAW and recover missed exposures, the ability to change ISO on the fly, and the ability to adjust white balance BEFORE or AFTER the shoot with RAW and the WhiBal® card killed any benefit film offered in exposure latitude compared to narrow digital latitude for highlight detail.
Lastly, you mention color punch. Once I started shooting exclusively RAW, and converting to ProPhoto RGB .tif, there is MORE punch than in K-64 or Provia Slides to be drawn from images. I will admit that .jpg is a disappointed for off or exgerated color (usually the wrong color!). But, hey, NO ONE ever admitted that films like Ecktachrome, Portra, or Velvia were ACCURATE. They are attractive BECAUSE they are exagerations of reality. All there effects, and more can be had with digital, even taking that exagerated image and making it an Ansel Adams high contrast B&W.

So, stick with film, and come back to digital in a few years. For me, it's mostly dead.
J

rufis6, I am with you. Though I am not dumping my digital, but rather complimenting it. I have been shooting film since mid-1980s (I'm only in my early 30s) and only recently have gone to digital (2 months ago actually). I am still learning how to post-process digital.

Unlike film its not as easy. Plus film gives different looks to my art, but with digital you need to "play" with it. I just haven't been able to tweak my digital to look like Velvia 50 or Provia 100. Or NPS or NPH for weddings. Shooting JPEG everything looks like its Kodak MAX 100 .

So what I do? If I need Velvia 50 or Provia 100 looks, I still shoot film. If I want NPH or NPS looks, I shoot film. If I want high grain B&W 1600 Tmax. There is just no substitution for "classic" looks/films.

One of these days I want to get a shot of a chickadee with a large format camera. Seriously, I'd love to see a frame-filling pic of a bird on large format.

There's a part of me that wants to use film, but for the stuff I do now it doesn't make any sense to go with 35mm film. But someday I may develop enough of an eye to truck an LF out to take a nice landscape. I'll be very happy that day.

I just hope that day comes before someone makes a 500 megapixel large format back or something.

To those of you who expressed your opinion based on objective differences between the two protocols I thank you. At least you did not attribute my decision as being based on emotions: "frame of mind," or "attitude." I am aware that there are those who prefer to gravitate towards the latest tools that come over the horizon; I did the same thing until I decided digital is not for me, at least for the present time. I did attempt to explain that my decision was based on facts. I had never utilised USM or high-pass sharpening pror to digital, nor did I feel a necessity to do so; my post processing was very limited for the reason I did not require it. I should also add, that I am quite capable of utilising these tools, I just hate to be required to.

As to the fact mentioned that 22 mp is not of itself necessarily a remedy, you are merely stating the obvious. But it should be noted that the makers of large megapixel cameras and camera backs are also aware of this fact and are not going to the trouble of manufacturing a camera that is not up snuff; it would be bad business. Also, I do not believe I have to worry about Leica manufacturing defectibe camera.

Haha... this is great. Its like round 5 of Mike Tyson vs. the egos. I had the same discussion with a guy today about the same thing. If your digital output is not satisfactory, then youre not doing it right. If your'e not willing to learn the ropes, then go back to film and let the lab do it all for you. I read that leica magazine sometimes. Great images! Its amazing what kind of pictures an uber multi thousand dollar manual camera can take for you.(Just Kidding. Thats my stab at the executives I know with M6's and 7's who cant use them.) As far as an 8MP camera lacking way behind 35mm film, I cant say i've experienced that. My 16x20's when produced correctly rival my Mamaiya 645 16x20's. Regardless of what you do, just have some fun. I'll put on my Thriller LP as a salute to you. HEE Hee!

Also, lets hope leica steps up to the plate on this digital back. So far, ALL of their digital offerings have been high dollar rebranded Panasonic stuff. I just dont see where a company that has been making levers and gears for a hundred years just wakes up and makes quality electronics. The truth is they dont. They rebrand stuff from other manufacturers and hope their ritzy name pulls in the sales. If you want the best in digital, you cant get any better than Canon. I think you'll be even more dissapointed with your multi thousand dollar back for you manual camera. Just my .02 megabytes worth.

UPDATE:
I just read that this back for the R series leica is going to be from one of the big boys. Either Kodak or imacon, can't remember. We'll just have to see.

mbze430 wrote:
I just haven't been able to tweak my digital to look like Velvia 50 or Provia 100. Or NPS or NPH for weddings. Shooting JPEG everything looks like its Kodak MAX 100 .

There are quite a few PS actions which simulate Velvia / Provia looks - here for example.