# Why would anyone shoot digital....



## Sw1tchFX (Nov 26, 2011)

...when you get results like this straight from the lab.


Mind you, this is -ZERO- photoshop. Just Kodak Ektar 100 shot at ISO 50.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 26, 2011)




----------



## tirediron (Nov 26, 2011)

Why?  Convenience, on-the-fly quality-control, turn-around time...  don't get me wrong, I love film, and will always shoot film to some degree, but for most things I think digital holds up pretty well...  





D700, (no editing other than some facial skin work to remove acne blemishes.  colours, saturation, etc, unchanged).


----------



## Kerbouchard (Nov 26, 2011)

So that somebody can look at the LCD and realize they need to reshoot the image with the subject's shoulders not completely square with the camera?


Sw1tchFX said:


> ...when you get results like this straight from the lab.
> 
> 
> Mind you, this is -ZERO- photoshop. Just Kodak Ektar 100 shot at ISO 50.


----------



## fjrabon (Nov 26, 2011)

because you could look at the first picture in the viewfinder and realize that you shot it with such a shallow DOF that her actual hair was completely out of focus.  That the extreme shallow DOF wasn't necessary because the background was so far away.  That her face was slightly washed out and has lost detail due to overexposure (cause by the contrast with the dark background).  You could then, in about 15 minutes, or probably the time you spent sending them to a lab, have shot it slightly underexposed, with a deeper DOF and then fixed everything else in photoshop.

Sure, the colors are certainly vivid, but when you ask a question like this, begging for the troll, you better come with _flawless_ images.  :er:

edit: also, the LCD would have told you that you cut off her left elbow.


----------



## joealcantar (Nov 26, 2011)

Hey, go back to film.  It is okay with me.  I'll stick to digital and if I feel it warrants a film shoot as well I do it.  We shoot digital because we see the results sooner.  
-
Shoot well, Joe


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Nov 26, 2011)

Kerbouchard said:


> So that somebody can look at the LCD and realize they need to reshoot the image with the subject's shoulders not completely square with the camera?



I had to LOL at that. Your shots are not the best examples of why shoot film, imho.


----------



## usayit (Nov 26, 2011)

Convenience.... life got a whole lot busier since my film days.

I still have a shoe box half full of unprocessed B&W and color rolls and the darkroom is now gone.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 26, 2011)

For me, digital means almost no dust. No scratches--EVER. No need for Spot-Tone on B&W prints. No damaged originals ruined by the lab or the film cassette or the camera's pressure plate or film gate areas. Never having a small hair or fiber casting a black shadow on each exposure for consecutive roills. Digital means 10,20,25 different possible "looks" to each and every image. I dunno...a lot of this infatuation you have with film is due to your relatively young age, and your understanding of medium format gear,and your ownership of a decent medium format setup. A lot of younger people like yourself are interested in the whole "film experience". I grew up on film of all types...I have zero nostalgia for film, and zero reverence for it...which is interesting in light of an article Michael Reichmann published last week on The Luminous Landscape.

Reichmann reviewed a wonderful film emulation plug-in application called DxO Film Pack  DxO Film Pack

I thought his comments were interesting when he said, *"**I am left with two lasting impressions after spending time with FilmPack 3.1. The first is what a truly brilliant job DxO Labs has done on recreating the look of a huge number of B&W and colour films. They really are to be commended for this."**
"My second impression is to once again confirm how truly poor film based imaging is / was compared to todays' digital capture. Using a variety of images I went through every available colour transparency and negative emulsion looking for one that appealed to me more than the original processed with my usual workflow. Not a single one even came close.** "*​


----------



## cgipson1 (Nov 26, 2011)

Sw1tchFX said:


> ...when you get results like this straight from the lab.
> 
> 
> Mind you, this is -ZERO- photoshop. Just Kodak Ektar 100 shot at ISO 50.



nice.. but what would you do if she had a honkin' big pimple on that lovely left cheek?   I miss shooting film actually (shot film for close to thirty years or so).. but probably won't go back.


----------



## Buckster (Nov 26, 2011)

Sw1tchFX said:


> Mind you, this is -ZERO- photoshop. Just Kodak Ektar 100 shot at ISO 50.


...which was then processed through one of these:






...and then processed through Photoshop CS5.1, according to your EXIF info.

By the way, why would anyone buy Photoshop CS5 when they obviously don't need it, since film all by itself is so awesome?  Kind of an expensive tool just for resizing digital photos that come from the lab, isn't it?


----------



## unpopular (Nov 26, 2011)

Images

Granted, I can buy a lot of film for $20k+, but the problem isn't the technology or any kind of additional processing needed post exposure. I am sure a professional would chew up $20k in film and processing very, very quickly. Besides, you can get older model medium format digital backs on eBay for less than $10k with resolutions similar to full frame DSLRs that will perform similarly in many other respects.

I'm sure if you look for RAW files from Nikon, Canon, Pentax and Sony you'll also find excellent examples by technically accomplished photographers.

This is all really a non-issue.


----------



## fotoshooter (Nov 26, 2011)

I had a good laugh from a few of the answers. For example: the pimple response..How do you think blemishes were removed before digital or even computers? Or the dust response....if you are careful dust is no issue. My darkroom is vented through filters so I don't have dust issues. Hair out of focus????? I see this more often with digital than film. I also see over sharpened hair more so with digital...

I'm in the photo business and each and every day I see digital images  with dark spots on the image due to dirty sensors so dust can be an  issue with both digital and film if you don't keep things clean..

DOF complaints...since most digital users set their camera for auto or program mode I see many images with extremely shallow depth of field since they try to focus on one part of the image..

Film is no better than digital nor is digital better than film. I use both........

Anybody worth their salt and with just an ounce of talent can produce outstanding images with film or digital. If you are in the business and need fast results than digital is your answer. If you enjoy photography either should work whichever you like best.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 26, 2011)

Living in the Rockies I can tell you that dust is a WAY bigger issue with digital than it was with film. You can always clean the film after you made the exposure, and the "sensor" is in a convenient dust proof roll and darkrooms tended to be pretty humid and well ventilated. I don't think I've ever had an issue where the film was dusty during exposure. But using digital where I live, I don't feel like I can keep up short of cleaning the sensor every single day or limiting myself to one lens.

DOF is a format issue, not a digital issue.


----------



## fjrabon (Nov 26, 2011)

fotoshooter said:


> I had a good laugh from a few of the answers. For example: the pimple response..How do you think blemishes were removed before digital or even computers? Or the dust response....if you are careful dust is no issue. My darkroom is vented through filters so I don't have dust issues. Hair out of focus????? I see this more often with digital than film. I also see over sharpened hair more so with digital...
> 
> I'm in the photo business and each and every day I see digital images  with dark spots on the image due to dirty sensors so dust can be an  issue with both digital and film if you don't keep things clean..
> 
> ...



the point of the DOF comments I made, and the cropping issues were that they would be noticeable on an LCD.  Which, to me is the biggest difference between film and digital.  As Joe McNally put it, you used to have to take test images on a crappy polaroid, now you can just look at the LCD.  I mean of the world's top pros today, who can choose either, they almost uniformly choose digital.  The OP makes it out like if you shoot digital, you are choosing to shoot an inferior format.  It's like he's walking up to Joe McNally and saying "hey Joe, you idiot, shoot digital, like us real photogs do."  Sure Cartier-Bresson and the like shot film, but they didn't have a choice either.


----------



## SCraig (Nov 26, 2011)

fotoshooter said:


> ... Anybody worth their salt and with just an ounce of talent can produce outstanding images with film or digital. If you are in the business and need fast results than digital is your answer. If you enjoy photography either should work whichever you like best.


What he said.

The same arguments abounded years ago when digital music started making its presence known.  Some preferred the warmth and "Feeling" of original analog music.  Others preferred the convenience and absolute "Correctness" of digital music.  In fact some synthesizers had the ability to "Humanize" their tones by just slightly detuning a note occasionally to make it seem more "Human".  Over time it came to be accepted that there is still room for both.  The same will happen with digital photography.

I've been behind a camera since the middle 60's.  I grew up with film.  I shot miles of B&W because I could easily process it in my own darkroom.  Then chemistry, paper, and techniques came about so that color could be processed in a non-commercial darkroom and I switched exclusively to color and never looked back (I think I've still got some old Ilford film around here somewhere but it's probably 30 years out of date!).  When digital photography hit the consumer level I adopted it.  The convenience of "Instant Gratification" was hard to resist.  Once again, I never looked back.

I still have all my darkroom equipment, it's in a closet in the basement.  I also still have my 35mm gear.  It's in the hall closet.  I can use it any time I want to, but I choose not to.  That doesn't make either choice wrong, analog or digital, it's just that digital is the one that I prefer right now.

Virtually the same problems are inherent in either form.  I've seen dust on prints, I've seen dust on sensors.  I've seen hair, finger prints, dirt, water, and everything else on all my lenses, both film and digital.  Same problems, different venues.  I've overexposed and underexposed film, I've blown highlights and blocked shadows with digital gear.  I've just plain metered the wrong area with both forms.

This argument will never end as long as both forms of photography are available.  At some point it's going to get difficult to find film or someone to process it and it will probably go the way of records or cassette tapes (I didn't say 8-track tapes because they were just so crappy to start with).

While it's available I think it's wonderful that people still enjoy film photography.  There is no question in my mind that NOT having the convenience of an LCD to check a shot and having to pay for every shot you make will make one a better photographer.  When the shot really counts and you can't check an LCD to make sure it's right then knowing how to get the right exposure is a big benefit.  I've made a lot of shots and kept my fingers crossed until I got the film processed.  Sometimes I won, sometimes I lost.

As an afterthought, the Olympus OM-10 that the photos at the beginning of this topic were shot with was one of the first truly automatic cameras marketed.  It had no "Manual" mode unless one purchased the optional "Manual Adapter" that plugged into the front of the camera.  I had one and in its day it was amazing.  I still have its big brother, the OM-2N and it shoots as well today as it did when I bought it in 1976.  Or at least it did when I last used it


----------



## IgsEMT (Nov 26, 2011)

> [h=2]Why would anyone shoot digital....[/h]


Because come clients don't want to pay for film (purchasing, development) + equipment rental, etc.


----------



## camz (Nov 26, 2011)

There's an enchanting sort of artistry which photographers take pride in when shooting film I think - I know a couple of well known retial photographers in the area who use film purely for that matter. 

However I'd have to agree with IgsEMT.  As much as I miss the smell of a dark room, cost effectiveness(time and money)alone justified enough for me to switch.  Also the market is dictating a similar preference as film will probably be only in the books as we're turning into a JIT(Just In Time) society.  We want things instaneous and cheap. Film does not meet any of the criteria of the concisousness shift, except for the artistry or in the purist perspective of photography's original ways.  

RIP Koda...last name chrome.


----------



## fotoshooter (Nov 26, 2011)

fjrabon said:


> The OP makes it out like if you shoot digital, you are choosing to shoot an inferior format.  It's like he's walking up to Joe McNally and saying "hey Joe, you idiot, shoot digital, like us real photogs do."  Sure Cartier-Bresson and the like shot film, but they didn't have a choice either.



I agree the OP did come on a bit strong but so did the rest of the people who responded..

The thread was shaping up to be a film v digital war which goes nowhere in the end..


----------



## fotoshooter (Nov 26, 2011)

IgsEMT said:


> > [h=2]Why would anyone shoot digital....[/h]
> 
> 
> Because come clients don't want to pay for film (purchasing, development) + equipment rental, etc.



Since I am in the imaging business I see costs per job on a daily basis. Many photographers charge a high cost to the customer for their time in post processing which far out weighs the minute cost of film and processing..

Many working photogs today still rent equipment and pass the costs along to the customer as well as extra costs such as transportation.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 26, 2011)

On the other side of the token, people are much more aware - or believe that they are much more aware - of what costs are involved when shooting digital. Regardless if it's fair that customers are demanding lower rates, that is what they are demanding. Just like how you're trying to maximize profit, they're trying to reduce cost and some photographers, usually younger start ups, have been very successful in offering products which conform with their expectations, regardless how valid. 

Today, a photographer will not get far by using film as a justification for rates which are out of line with the customer's expectations. They'd simply question why you are using film when it could save them money.


----------



## fotoshooter (Nov 26, 2011)

unpopular said:


> Today, a photographer will not get far by using film as a justification for rates which are out of line with the customer's expectations. They'd simply question why you are using film when it could save them money.



We have several successful photographers as customers who still use film and are in demand for their quality work..

Granted there are budget minded people who want "cheap" and will bypass the quality photographers whether they use film or digital and use less experienced younger shooters since they will offer cut rate prices..


----------



## BlairWright (Nov 26, 2011)

The camera is just a tool, the format and media really don't come into play much (well they do but they don't but that's n9ot my argument), it's the person with their finger on the shutter release that makes the difference.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 26, 2011)

I honestly believe that modern digital of 12MP or higher beats 35mm film hands-down in image quality on several metrics, especially at ANY elevated ISO, beginning at ISO 200,and ranging upward; there is NO 35mm film that can beat a modern d-slr capture when the image is exposed at ISO 800 or 1600. Even one of the former kings of ISO 200, Kodachrome 200, looks pretty crappy compared to a modern Nikon or Canon at 200 ISO.

A 10- to 25-year-old film image is going to have 'issues' with dust, in my experience. Maybe not for those who have clean-room type archives and operating-room-like scanning stations in air-conditioned rooms...I actually LAUGHED at the comment that dust is not a problem with film!! I found that quite funny!!!

35mm film really is nothing much to crow about.


----------



## cgipson1 (Nov 26, 2011)

fotoshooter said:


> I had a good laugh from a few of the answers. For example: the pimple response..How do you think blemishes were removed before digital or even computers? Or the dust response....if you are careful dust is no issue. My darkroom is vented through filters so I don't have dust issues. Hair out of focus????? I see this more often with digital than film. I also see over sharpened hair more so with digital...



I know how they used to remove pimples... it is just a LOT easier today. I had my own lab in the 80's (and also worked at a buddy's commercial lab). and also had a studio (pre-digital.. heck.. even pre AF)  ... and I wouldn't go back!



fotoshooter said:


> I'm in the photo business and each and every day I see digital images  with dark spots on the image due to dirty sensors so dust can be an  issue with both digital and film if you don't keep things clean..
> 
> DOF complaints...since most digital users set their camera for auto or program mode I see many images with extremely shallow depth of field since they try to focus on one part of the image..
> 
> ...



I do agree with this.. you can get good images with either. or not.. it is up to you. Personally I feel like the "mystique" of shooting film is way overblown, just like the processing costs can be.


----------



## fotoshooter (Nov 26, 2011)

Derrel said:


> I honestly believe that modern digital of 12MP or higher beats 35mm film hands-down in image quality on several metrics, especially at ANY elevated ISO, beginning at ISO 200,and ranging upward; there is NO 35mm film that can beat a modern d-slr capture when the image is exposed at ISO 800 or 1600. Even one of the former kings of ISO 200, Kodachrome 200, looks pretty crappy compared to a modern Nikon or Canon at 200 ISO.



I would have to disagree.

Since the human eye is incapable of distinguishing detail below a certain point (approx. 200 dots per inch) there is no way you or I or anybody else can see the difference in resolution of a 35mm negative or slide or the digital image. So "crappy" quality in this sense is a figment of imagination..

The only "crappy" quality (35mm) I have seen from many years of photography is what is done by those who have no talent. I see "crappy" quality digital images every day at work so "crappy" is not 35mm or digital...it's the person behind the camera..



Derrel said:


> A 10- to 25-year-old film image is going to have 'issues' with dust, in my experience. Maybe not for those who have clean-room type archives and operating-room-like scanning stations in air-conditioned rooms...I actually LAUGHED at the comment that dust is not a problem with film!! I found that quite funny!!!



Not if it is properly stored.

I do agree though in part since most people don't properly store their negatives or slides.



Derrel said:


> 35mm film really is nothing much to crow about.



A properly exposed 35mm negative or slide scanned to a resolution of 4181x6305 (approx. 26MP) using high end scanning equipment not flat bed or consumer grade scanners will give quality equal to (as the eye perceives) my D7000 which is 14MP... I have a shop in Austin, Texas that scans my negatives to the above resolution and I cannot tell the difference between these scanned negatives and images from my D7000..

I have also done 20x30 enlargements from my negatives and at viewing distance cannot see defects.. In order to get this quality though you have to do it right when shooting the photograph..


----------



## skieur (Nov 26, 2011)

The reason that I switched originally was because I was already shooting colour video, teaching computers, and doing computer animation.

skieur


----------



## fotoshooter (Nov 26, 2011)

cgipson1 said:


> fotoshooter said:
> 
> 
> > I had a good laugh from a few of the answers. For example: the pimple response..How do you think blemishes were removed before digital or even computers? Or the dust response....if you are careful dust is no issue. My darkroom is vented through filters so I don't have dust issues. Hair out of focus????? I see this more often with digital than film. I also see over sharpened hair more so with digital...
> ...



I agree..it is easier today......


----------



## unpopular (Nov 27, 2011)

fotoshooter said:


> Granted there are budget minded people who want "cheap" and will bypass the quality photographers whether they use film or digital and use less experienced younger shooters since they will offer cut rate prices..



I think this has more to do with it than what kind of recording medium they use, and can demand a high rate no matter if they use digital or film. I was just imagining one of the many mediocre, yet experienced "old men's club" photographers pulling this line out of their hat to justify why their rates are so much higher than the other mediocre, inexperienced young startups.

I can hear it now ... "I use film because I have found that the quality is so much better ... blah blah blah" Meanwhile, Jaimie just wants a senior portrait package at an affordable rate, knowing full-well that the majority of these images that the photographer elevates to something akin to the Mona Lisa would be thrown away within two years by everyone except Aunt Myrtle.http://grazierphotography.com/


----------



## maris (Nov 27, 2011)

The deep philosophic reason for making pictures out of electronic files  (aka "digital") is the same as making paintings and drawings. The  electronic file may have a close, partial, or negligible relationship to  anything in the real world. That's the point of software like  Photoshop. So we can make the picture come out how we want. So the  picture says what we need it to say.

Photography, or making pictures in light sensitive surfaces via  changes caused by photons from subject matter, is largely hostage to  subject matter. That is a serious limitation for an art because our  expressive vocabulary is heavily limited by our capacity to discover the  necessary subject matter. For example to exemplify "drama" we might  photograph a gothic castle at night during a lightning storm but the  chances of doing so are few and far between. Photoshop, on the other  hand, can give us clip art, camera-files, merging, stitching, HDR, etc,  and castle+night+storm could be cooked up in an afternoon by a competent  operator; job done.

Importantly, the technical quality of  pictures doesn't count. Digital technology already can duplicate the  surface appearance of pictures executed in any medium. The specific  reasons for looking at digital and not photography (or vice versa) hinge  on the different relationships of those pictures to things in the real  world. That's in theory. Mostly, pictures are entertainment seen with a  passive suspension of disbelief and critical thought doesn't come into it.


----------



## raphaelaaron (Dec 3, 2011)

these responses had me lolling.


----------



## Already.used (Dec 5, 2011)

But why are the only cameras worth shooting in digital so far out of my price range is the real question.

I would only shoot a Leica M8 or M9 and could care less if I was using a Jupiter 3 lens or a $10k noctilux. Why? Because I despise how DSLR's feel in my hands, the viewfinders, the menus, every last thing about them. It's like trying to find a comfortable way to sit on my own nuts. 

Also I do not like almost every digital image there is because of that stupid filter that Leica's lack. I just can't stand what you get with that filter.


----------



## rexbobcat (Dec 17, 2011)

Sw1tchFX said:


> ...when you get results like this straight from the lab.Mind you, this is -ZERO- photoshop. Just Kodak Ektar 100 shot at ISO 50.


 Because you're probably gonna end up putting the images on a computer anyways?


----------



## rexbobcat (Dec 17, 2011)

Derrel said:


> I honestly believe that modern digital of 12MP or higher beats 35mm film hands-down in image quality on several metrics, especially at ANY elevated ISO, beginning at ISO 200,and ranging upward; there is NO 35mm film that can beat a modern d-slr capture when the image is exposed at ISO 800 or 1600. Even one of the former kings of ISO 200, Kodachrome 200, looks pretty crappy compared to a modern Nikon or Canon at 200 ISO.A 10- to 25-year-old film image is going to have 'issues' with dust, in my experience. Maybe not for those who have clean-room type archives and operating-room-like scanning stations in air-conditioned rooms...I actually LAUGHED at the comment that dust is not a problem with film!! I found that quite funny!!!35mm film really is nothing much to crow about.


 But isn't the resolution higher? I mean, because digital images are pixels, and film is...well...I don't know enough about the science to come up with a term. Well, whatever the parts that a film image is made up of (is it still dots per inch? I think that might be a digital-era invention) is much more infinitesimal when compared to pixels?


----------



## compur (Dec 18, 2011)

The world of digital imagery has a term "resolution" and so does the world of film and so does the world of lens 
optics.  The word is the same but the exact meaning in these 3 worlds has important differences.  It is unfortunate 
that the same word was chosen because film resolution is not the same as optical resolution and neither is the same 
as digital resolution.  These differences cause confusion, not to mention endless arguments on internet forums
which I don't care to partake in so I will leave the defining of these terms to anyone who cares to take the
time to find and understand them on their own.  I just wanted to point out that they have different meanings and
implications in these 3 related areas. 

Happy holidays, peace on Earth and goodwill toward persons.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 18, 2011)

Bottom line: In regular, everyday,real-world situations, modern d-slr captures from 10,12,14,16,18 and higher MP cameras produce image quality at ISO 100 to 200 that is superior to 35mm color negative film of the same ISO value. That is my conclusion, as well as the conclusion of many thousands of other people who have been involved in photography for more than a short time. Note my "regular, everyday, real-world" qualification. The fact of the matter is the vast majority of film developing labs and printing labs are now gone, and what remains is typically NOT very good. Not that regular, everyday, real-world 35mm developing and printing was ever excellent on a regular, everyday basis, at more than a small percentage of locations. Suffice it to say, TODAY, in 2011, if one goes out and shoots a roll of say, 35mm color negative film and gets the images processed and printed, the final results will often be quite crappy. Especially if the pictures come from a "real-world" store, and not some upscale New York City lab that caters to professionals, and charges $24.00 per 36 4x6 prints.

This summer, I shot two rolls of FujiColor 200 color negative film of my son swimming in the pool, using a Canon A-1 waterproof/underwater camera. The light was bright! Shutter speeds were high! And the prints looked like crap. My iPhone does a better job with its 5 MP, backside-illuminated sensor. When my buddy Mike brought over his Canon 10D, 6MP d-slr,7 years ago, we did some studio sessions to see how well it imaged...we were AMAZED at how low-noise the images were...we could see detail right down to individual eyebrow hairs in an infant's brow...with no grain to break up the detail...

As far as I am concerned, medium speed !00-160 ISO film and higher-speed 400 ISO + 35mm film is NOT as good as digital is for resolving small, fine detail, with low noise. I'm not very impressed with 35mm size film, compared against modern d-slr captures...at least in some respects. Digital however, has very bad handling of highlights, and its portrayal of contours, and depths and shapes seems to lag behind that of most films. Digital is very smooth...at times, its so smooth that it makes some subject matter appear lifeless, until the images are strongly massaged in post.

Oil-mounted drum scans from $50,000 scanners with $5,000 software packages are one thing: consumer desktop film scanners produce images that make decent scans. What happens with most scanning systems is that if one scans at a very high dots per inch number, there comes a time when the scanner's optics cannot resolve anything more than film grain. 35mm film is really nothing "special" compared against a modern d-slr capture, ESPECIALLY if really elevated ISO is needed. Digital is very easy to create...no lab runs, no scratched film, no botched cutting of films, etc. In digital, each dupe file is 100 percent as good as the original; not the case with films. People who love film can continue to love film...I myself am over it in 35mm size...just not worth it most of the time in 35mm size.


----------



## Josh66 (Dec 18, 2011)

I agree that digital has probably surpassed 35mm - how long do you think till the same can be said for medium and large format?

10 years?  Less?

I can't cite a website or anything, but from what I have read, large format sales are up.


----------



## terri (Dec 19, 2011)

Bottom line is: who cares?        If you're happy with the workflow you've created and happy with your results, do what you like to do.    

These endless debates usually contain some bad or misleading information, as people seem to think there is a battle to be won and their points must be accepted to get folks to change their approach to photography.    

This forum is for film discussion, not debate on proving it has merit.     Let your chosen medium make you happy with _your_ results, and you will lose the need to defend yourself to those who use another medium.     It's the mind of the photographer that's important, not the camera.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Dec 19, 2011)

Simply because it is the way it is now.  It is the generation of instant everything and if you want to compete in the photo world, people expect instant.  I've said it before, I'd love for everyone that has only ever shot digital and auto everything for one month to have to shoot film, use a light meter, process and print.  There would be a worldwide surplus of garbage images, worse than the worldwide pile of garbage digital images that are being produced.


----------



## Arpeggio9 (Dec 19, 2011)

Derrel said:


> Bottom line: In regular, everyday,real-world situations, modern d-slr captures from 10,12,14,16,18 and higher MP cameras produce image quality at ISO 100 to 200 that is superior to 35mm color negative film of the same ISO value.



But the bottom line is not as simple as that Derrel.  I really can't put it into words, but I'll try. It's about how film translates reality to the human eye compared to digital medium,  or how tones are picked up initially. The amount of data or tone that is recorded, and it has nothing to do with superiority of one 35 mm medium over another. They really are two deferent mediums. It's like a game of compromise when you look at it objectively. 

Take a look at this video. 



    It might explain it better and there is a visual aid.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Dec 19, 2011)

Arpeggio9 said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Bottom line: In regular, everyday,real-world situations, modern d-slr captures from 10,12,14,16,18 and higher MP cameras produce image quality at ISO 100 to 200 that is superior to 35mm color negative film of the same ISO value.
> ...



Objectively, the difference is that film necessitates lab techs processing and refining the images.  With digital, the person who took the photo has to process them.  In many cases, the lab techs to do a much better job, which leads some photographers to think they are better than they are, or thinking film is better than digital.  When some of those film are better than digital people are forced to actually do it themselves, they are like a fish out of water.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 19, 2011)

Film does not without exception "necessitate lab techs processing and refining the images". Many serious photographers developed and printed their own B&W films and prints. Color reversal film was always a, "What you shot is what you've got," type of get-it-right-in-the-camera shooting environment; a color slide WAS the original AND the final image,delivered for separations to be made. (With of course, exceptions for push and pull-processing, slide duplicates, inter-negatives,etc,etc.)

In terms of who is doing the work...digital allows the photographer to modify his color or B&W images in ways that a darkroom worker could only DREAM of in his wildest,wildest fantasies...and, to do it all in perfectly repeatable, recordable steps, in daylight, with no paper,film, or chemical costs...as well as with perfect repeatability, print after print. A B&W print that needed multiple dodges, burns, and some serious "work" in the darkroom can be replicated only by the most-skilled darkroom printers,usually working from notes, and after multiple test prints...with a digital file, multiple burn-ins, dodges, and all types of "work" are easy-peasy...

...Even a kid can do it. Or...the photographer can submit his images (digital or film) to the photo desk, and have one of the techs do the work...One of my best friends was a pre-press photo tech at a large metro daily newspaper for many years...every night he'd pick up images from staff, interns, the wire services, and regular people...at one time the images came in on slide and neative film...then as scanned images...and then, by the end of his tenure there, as he said, "everything from outside comes in on a CD." 

As far as the original question, "Why would anyone shoot digital?", when one can get good film images...I still go back to the samples submitted by the OP--MEDIUM FORMAT rollfilm shots...it's pretty amazing what having a LARGE image capture can do...old, 1930's folding Kodaks produced VERY good image quality, quality that holds up quite well on 17-inch wide prints scanned from old negs on a flatbed EPSON scanner...medium format and large format images are BIG, and fairly easy to work with. Medium format cameras make BIG, herkin' slides and negatives...and the results look pretty good even with modest lenses and cheap cameras. I like film images. But I do not miss film's many hassles, or its many limitations.


----------



## Josh66 (Dec 19, 2011)

Derrel said:


> I still go back to the samples submitted by the OP--MEDIUM FORMAT rollfilm shots...


I saw this post here and on APUG, and maybe even on Flickr...  Pretty sure it was 35mm.  The OP can say for sure though.


----------



## unpopular (Dec 19, 2011)

Part of the problem with that digital/film video is that we don't know how the digital image was processed. Was it a JPEG made in camera? Was it the crappy software that came with the camera? The example is good, but I am not totally convinced without having access to his RAW files.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 19, 2011)

I thought these were with his new/old Mamiya 645 system...they were shot on Ektar 100, down-rated to ISO 50. The first shot of the young woman appears to be shot with studio flash type lighting, on-location, so it would look pretty decent on film OR digital capture. ISO 50....boy, that takes one back to the 1980's...it's a huge,huge PITA to work with film that is that slow...motion blur becomes a HUGE problem on so,so,so many types of photos...in the mornings and afternoons some subjects are simply impossible to shoot, due to the low sensitivity of the capture medium, and the limitations of lenses...that's one of the reasons I preferred Kodachrome 64 Professional over Kodachrome 25...25 was just too slooooooooow for many subjects...a slight breeze was like a tropical storm!!

I still like the color palette of some of the newer,professionally-oriented and priced color negative films.


----------



## Josh66 (Dec 19, 2011)

Could be 645...  I'm not sure now, but I thought it was 35mm...

There was a thread over on APUG with the same image of the girl - Ektar vs. 400H, I think.  Both of those films are available in 35mm and 120, but for some reason I was thinking it was 35mm...

Kodak Ektar 100 vs. Fuji Pro 400h (EXAMPLES!)

Oops - you were right Derrel - 645.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 19, 2011)

O|||||||O said:


> Could be 645...  I'm not sure now, but I thought it was 35mm...
> 
> There was a thread over on APUG with the same image of the girl - Ektar vs. 400H, I think.  Both of those films are available in 35mm and 120, but for some reason I was thinking it was 35mm...
> 
> ...



Look at the horrible "green pollution" the Fuji 400 film has...that is one problem I have encountered many times when using film underneath large expanses of green-leaved trees, like maple trees. In this example, using electronic flash as the light for the young woman, the slower film is picking up almost no ambient light, and she is lighted almost entirely by flash...with the 400-speed film, that ugly green-tinged light is influencing the skin tones,and her hair, to a pretty bad extent. The Ektar, rated at E.I.  50 looks really,really nice, especially seen side by side with the 400 Fuji shot.

I used to shoot location portraits in parks where there were lots of maple trees...it's almost a necessity to use an orange-hued filter to kill that awful green light that maples create...


----------



## unpopular (Dec 19, 2011)

I remember in college people were debating if there was a point to 645 - if it truly is "medium format" and if you're better off just shooting 35mm.

It's funny because now we get excited about 35mm frame digital.


----------



## Robert_Maxey (Dec 27, 2011)

Sw1tchFX said:


> ...when you get results like this straight from the lab.
> 
> 
> Mind you, this is -ZERO- photoshop. Just Kodak Ektar 100 shot at ISO 50.



I prefer film, but a really great print is not always going to come from the lab. In my day, a great print took work and to get a great image, you did just as much work as a typical PS users will do today. Some techniques were discontinued decades before the digital revolution and I seriously doubt most here would care to try some of these printing techniques. Trust me, quite often it was far more difficult to get it right than you might think.


Digital is getting better and film is getting scarce, so learn your PS I suppose or you will have to learn to draw.


----------



## Buckster (Dec 27, 2011)

O|||||||O said:


> Could be 645...  I'm not sure now, but I thought it was 35mm...
> 
> There was a thread over on APUG with the same image of the girl - Ektar vs. 400H, I think.  Both of those films are available in 35mm and 120, but for some reason I was thinking it was 35mm...
> 
> ...


Wait... I'm confused.  Is the photo of the girl NOT the OP's?


----------



## Josh66 (Dec 27, 2011)

Buckster said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> > Could be 645...  I'm not sure now, but I thought it was 35mm...
> ...


I'm pretty sure that it is, and he just has a different user name on APUG.  I thought I saw it on Flickr too, but when I tried to search I couldn't find it.


----------

