# Is it film or digital?



## Rick58 (Mar 5, 2013)

Anyone who has read my posts in the past knows I have way more year knotches in my film belt, then digital. In fact. I often feel myself being lured back into playing with film. But, the question in my mind always arises...If I'm going to take a negative, and scan it into pixels, then manipulate it in any of the software choices. Why bother? As much as I have the urge to dust off my film gear, I can never justify it in my mind...UNLESS...I'm would go full out, and reopen a darkroom. But even then, the print would need to be scanned to share, on this board for example. Any thoughts?


----------



## runnah (Mar 5, 2013)

You're right, why bother. The extra work, expense and time does not justify the final product IMO.

p.s. I have my old A1 if you are interested.


----------



## Rick58 (Mar 5, 2013)

runnah said:


> You're right, why bother. The extra work, expense and time does not justify the final product IMO.
> 
> p.s. I have my old A1 if you are interested.



Thanks, but my four F2's wouldn't like it.


----------



## KenC (Mar 5, 2013)

Agree completely.  I spent a lot of time the first 20 years or so that I was interested in photography developing film and making B&W, and even some color prints.  The best thing about digital to me was that I didn't have to clear large blocks of time to set up equipment and clean up afterward, but I could just turn on my computer and scan a couple of negatives or work on an image for a little while, then shut down.  I called it my "dry darkroom" for a while.  I can't imagine going back to film - if I want that "film look" I can create it digitally.


----------



## jake337 (Mar 5, 2013)

I guess it depends on what Size of film and how you plan to scan it.


I think there would be a difference between 35mm scanned with a standard scanner and 8x10 with a drum scanner?


----------



## runnah (Mar 5, 2013)

Not to mention that digital quality has surpassed film.


----------



## Overread (Mar 5, 2013)

Last I checked film still had a bit of an edge with dynamic range over digital - also film tends to favour the whites with more detail (and the blacks with less - almost a reverse of digital). 

Also whilst 35mm film vs digital might not give you much difference medium or other larger formats of film are still readily available and the cameras themselves much cheaper than they were in the past (and the digital equivalents are exceptionally expensive). Granted you will need to get yourself a very good scanner or have the negatives sent off to be scanned well so that you reap the reward of what you use, but it could easily provide the film love and nostalgia aspect of shooting with film whilst also providing you something different that your digital camera can't provide


----------



## sm4him (Mar 5, 2013)

I concur. Unless you plan to print your photos (remember PRINTS?!? Actual "hard copy" photos that you could hang on the wall and hand to your friends, and put in albums? Yeah, what a concept!) it's going to end up being digital anyway, so FOR ME, it's just not a worthwhile venture.

There ARE some things I miss about my film days, but honestly I think most of it is just nostalgia rather than anything practical. Again, that's just for me--I can't speak for anyone else, and there are plenty of people who love to shoot film for reasons that I just don't really get into. Some love the darkroom process, for instance--personally, I probably couldn't really do darkroom processing very well anymore with my vision anyway.

The things I miss about film are more intangible--I miss the anticipation factor of not really KNOWING whether you got the shot or not until you saw it develop (or got the prints back if you sent them out). I kinda miss LOADING film into my camera, which is weird.   I miss some of the different controls on the camera, like the little film rewind knob that you had to pull up and then turn.  
In general--I miss the "idea" of film photography way more than I actually miss doing film photography.

What I *don't* miss far outweighs the nostalgia factor, for me:
I don't miss having to really watch what you shot because you only had 12 more exposures on the roll, and even if you had more film with you, it could be a bother to have to stop and unwind the roll in the camera, then get the new roll in and ready to go, and in the meantime, "the shot" you'd been waiting for would invariably happen while there was no film in your camera. Yeah, you can also run out of room on a memory card, but it's so fast to switch, and since I just make it a habit to always have plenty of cards with me, I have never experienced the "out of room" factor with my DSLR.

Even though I miss the "anticipation" of wondering what you'd gotten on film, truthfully I *love* the instant feedback of digital way more. Did I get what I was after? Just take a peek and see. Yes, sometimes what I like what I see on the display but later on the computer I see my focus was a little off--but generally speaking, I feel way more confident that I came close to what I was after.

I do not really miss the darkroom at all.  I did like seeing a print "come to life", but I never really *loved* the darkroom process the way some do--the chemicals, that little red light... I was just not that big of a fan. I find PS way more enjoyable than the time I spent in the darkroom. For one thing, I love being able to take a single raw file, and in just a few minutes, I can "play" with it and try six different ways of processing it--I can take one file and create a color version, B&W, cropped two different ways, "ratified" (my term for applying all the fancy-schmancy filters and such), different wb's, ad infinitum.

So, yeah--on an emotional level, I miss film.
On a practical level, not so much.


----------



## jake337 (Mar 5, 2013)

runnah said:


> Not to mention that digital quality has surpassed film.




See for me it is not the quality.


It is the physical size of the medium and the complete control over your focal plane with movements.

Take a 4x5 view camera for example.  You can get the magnification/compression of a 300mm lens with a FOV of a, roughly, 90mm lens on 35mm = awesome.


Even more drastic is a 900mm lens on 8x10 has a, roughly, equivalent FOV to a 135mm lens with 35mm.





I'm still saving for a Sinar P2...


----------



## Rick58 (Mar 5, 2013)

jake337 said:


> I guess it depends on what Size of film and how you plan to scan it.
> 
> 
> I think there would be a difference between 35mm scanned with a standard scanner and 8x10 with a drum scanner?



To be honest, my B&W was always reserved for MF and LF. While I had everything I needed for 35mm in the DR, the images were just to small when there were better choices...IMO
Which leads to yet another area: Price, $2.00 for a sheet of 4x5 is not in my hobby budget. 120 is still manageable, but even that, without a DR, each roll needs to be sent to the lab and returned, just to be scanned and processed.
Kind'a getting off track a little (it&#8217;s my thread, so I'm aloud ), I mentioned not working with 35 in the DR due to the image size and alternatives. Now, unless you go full frame, the "Negative" is even smaller. Just rambling...


----------



## jake337 (Mar 5, 2013)

Rick58 said:


> jake337 said:
> 
> 
> > I guess it depends on what Size of film and how you plan to scan it.
> ...



You could always just keep it on a budget.  I only allow myself two rolls of 35mm film a month.  Everything else is digital.  I save the film for those special occasions.


----------



## Rick58 (Mar 5, 2013)

runnah said:


> Not to mention that digital quality has surpassed film.




Ouch....that's a BIG can of worms. You think C&C methods got out of control...


----------



## Rick58 (Mar 5, 2013)

jake337 said:


> Rick58 said:
> 
> 
> > jake337 said:
> ...



That's a good thought. I know you'll be more careful before pressing the shutter...on second thought, is that a good practice :scratch:


----------



## runnah (Mar 5, 2013)

Rick58 said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > Not to mention that digital quality has surpassed film.
> ...



I stand by my statements!

But we all know it is true...


----------



## jake337 (Mar 5, 2013)

Rick58 said:


> jake337 said:
> 
> 
> > Rick58 said:
> ...




I've noticed I've slowed down with my digital alot since picking up the FM2.  The only time I use higher FPS is if my son is running around or if I'm shooting wide open.


----------



## KmH (Mar 5, 2013)

When I decided to make the change from film to digital, I never looked back for many of the reasons you mention, like scanning to digitize for computer post processing and electronic display.

No doubt, the learning curve made it necessary that the transition take place over a period of several years.


----------



## Mully (Mar 5, 2013)

For t the past few months I have been scanning old kodachrome and I must say that for some images it has been a real boost to being able to correct a few abnormalities. Some of the 30 YO film is starting to change color and having the digital image has saved these. I miss some aspects of film, especially shooting 8x10 B&W and contact printing the images. I can't bring myself to get rid of my film equipment either so I live with that curse.


----------



## Rick58 (Mar 5, 2013)

Mully said:


> For t the past few months I have been scanning old kodachrome and I must say that for some images it has been a real boost to being able to correct a few abnormalities. Some of the 30 YO film is starting to change color and having the digital image has saved these. I miss some aspects of film, especially shooting 8x10 B&W and contact printing the images. I can't bring myself to get rid of my film equipment either so I live with that curse.



I recently did the same thing with all my kids photo's that were also 30 some years old. Cheap-O processed at the nearest K-Mart, they were all turning the typical red overcast. A few minutes in post, and they looks like they were taken yesterday.


----------



## Rick58 (Mar 5, 2013)

KmH said:


> When I decided to make the change from film to digital, I never looked back for many of the reasons you mention, like scanning to digitize for computer post processing and electronic display.
> 
> No doubt, the learning curve made it necessary that the transition take place over a period of several years.



The learning curve is amazing. Accept for the fundamentals, it's almost a completely different hobby. One big problem I have is getting over the ease of diverting from reality. With digital, if there's a telephone pole in the way...blame...it's cloned out. It's a personal thing, but I still have a personal issue with the computer wizardry. I know, I know, this will get all the folks hollering about the processing film is the same, but in my mind it's not. I also realize the choice is always there to not use it. I wonder if a SOOTC thread would have any interest?


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 5, 2013)

Rick58 said:


> One big problem I have is getting over the ease of diverting from reality. With digital, if there's a telephone pole in the way...blame...it's cloned out. It's a personal thing, but I still have a personal issue with the computer wizardry. I know, I know, this will get all the folks hollering about the processing film is the same, but in my mind it's not. I also realize the choice is always there to not use it.



You can look at that from the other direction. One of the aspects of digital that I appreciate most is that it allows me to stick so much closer to reality than film ever did. The increased level of control in digital is just a tool offering enhanced precision. Whether my photo is more or less faithful to reality is entirely up to me. Film was sloppy -- with a more precise tool I can do a more precise job of being faithful to the reality I photograph.

And as you noted the process of using photography to manipulate reality didn't start with digital, if anything digital has disarmed lying photographers since it's added an element of awareness into the public consciousness that was missing before digital. At least now the public is suspicious, back when film was used to lie to them they were lambs led to the slaughter. For example the public was actually naive enough to believe all those photos Gene Smith published in Life magazine under the guise of journalism -- this can become a really long list....

Joe


----------



## skieur (Mar 9, 2013)

runnah said:


> Rick58 said:
> 
> 
> > runnah said:
> ...



Several years ago, Popular Photography magazine did a lab comparison and found that an 8 by 10 portrait shot on film equaled in sharpness to an 8 X 10 on a digital camera with 5 to 8 megapixels.  Digital is now considerably past that megapixel level.


----------



## Rick58 (Mar 9, 2013)

I've also heard that, but, what happens when you move into MF or even LF. Even back in the film days, I did very little 35mm B&W due to the clarity of MF and LF compared to 35mm.

It would be interesting to know where this stands with the higher MP cameras today.


----------



## runnah (Mar 9, 2013)

I recently tired to blow up an old 35mm negative and the quality just didn't compare.


----------



## BrianV (Mar 9, 2013)

Dark room quipment is cheap these days, prices on Medium Format is lower than ever. It's pretty much bottomed out. Pick up a film kit and enlarger, try it out for yourself.

Comparing film with digital- different media, different rendering. Easier to try it out for yourself rather then weighing opinions.


----------



## Josh66 (Mar 9, 2013)

Film (even scanned film) still looks better than digital, IMO.  Megapixels won't change that.

Film also lasts longer - that's something to consider too.  Properly processed and stored negatives will still be viewable hundreds of years from now - will digital photos?  Maybe, maybe not...


If you want to shoot film, shoot film.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Mar 9, 2013)

Rick58 said:


> Anyone who has read my posts in the past knows I have way more year knotches in my film belt, then digital. In fact. I often feel myself being lured back into playing with film. But, the question in my mind always arises...If I'm going to take a negative, and scan it into pixels, then manipulate it in any of the software choices. Why bother? As much as I have the urge to dust off my film gear, I can never justify it in my mind...UNLESS...I'm would go full out, and reopen a darkroom. But even then, the print would need to be scanned to share, on this board for example. Any thoughts?


Shooting commercial work that demands constant feedback and fast turnaround times, Digital is superior. 


But assuming you've got time, and you're using a good lab or doing it yourself..

A Contax 645 and 80mm f/2 is way sharper and gives way shallower depth of field than any 50mm wide open.
Color is better for photographing people.
Black and white printing has more range than digital.
(Color Neg) highlight dynamic range is way beyond anything digital can even comprehend.
You don't fake anything, you get it right in camera.
It's more honest than digital.
The only thing that will make the pictures look dated are clothes, cars, and hairstyles.
Real Fine Art doesn't exist on a digital level.
It's tangible.
Film is easier to shoot. Unsure? overexpose 2 or 3 stops. 
Clients and other photographers have more respect for your skills.
You'll have something physical to pass down to your children. 
You don't break connection with who your photographing because you can't put your head down and chimp.
If there's nuclear war, you could still go out with your Leica, Hasselblad, or Nikon F and document the new human condition. EMP's from the nukes would have rendered digital cameras useless.


----------



## Buckster (Mar 9, 2013)

O|||||||O said:


> Film (even scanned film) still looks better than digital, *IMO*.  Megapixels won't change that.


Subjective opinion, as noted by the "IMO".



O|||||||O said:


> Film also lasts longer


Speculation.  Unproven at this time.



O|||||||O said:


> Properly processed and stored negatives will still be viewable hundreds of years from now - will digital photos?


Given similar levels of "properly processed and stored", there's no reason they can't be.



O|||||||O said:


> Maybe, maybe not...


Exactly.  Now look at the state of old cellulose film deteriorating fast in archives and getting digitized to save the images and films shot on it before it's gone forever, then go on pretending that film lasts virtually forever if it floats your boat.



O|||||||O said:


> If you want to shoot film, shoot film.


Good idea.  But don't do because someone else has the subjective idea that it looks better or the purely speculative idea that it will last longer.


----------



## Josh66 (Mar 9, 2013)

Buckster said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> > Film (even scanned film) still looks better than digital, *IMO*.  Megapixels won't change that.
> ...



Wow.

Of course it's subjective, it's my personal opinion.  I didn't think that needed pointing out.  It should have been obvious to anyone reading this.

The longevity is speculation because digital hasn't been around long enough to prove itself.  Film has.

Cellulose nitrate film hasn't been 'standard' for a long time.  Obviously they figured out that it was unstable and did something about that...


----------



## Rick58 (Mar 9, 2013)

BrianV said:


> Dark room quipment is cheap these days, prices on Medium Format is lower than ever. It's pretty much bottomed out. Pick up a film kit and enlarger, try it out for yourself.
> 
> Comparing film with digital- different media, different rendering. Easier to try it out for yourself rather then weighing opinions.



Picking up the equipment won't be a issue. I already have two D2's along with all the other B&W DR equipment

I have two Bronica's and RB67 crown graphic, baby graphic and a Calumet D400. I just sold my Linhof Technika 23, my Rollei and my Mamiya 220 and 330.
I've been in and out of the DR for 40 years.

I'm not sure what warranted this response. I was merely opening a discussion.


----------



## Josh66 (Mar 9, 2013)

Rick58 said:


> I'm not sure what warranted this response. I was merely opening a discussion.



And we are discussing, lol.


----------



## Buckster (Mar 9, 2013)

O|||||||O said:


> Of course it's subjective, it's my personal opinion.  I didn't think that needed pointing out.  It should have been obvious to anyone reading this.


I didn't see any harm in pointing it out either, just in case anyone reading it didn't notice.



O|||||||O said:


> The longevity is speculation because digital hasn't been around long enough to prove itself.  Film has.


Really?  See below.



O|||||||O said:


> Cellulose nitrate film hasn't been 'standard' for a long time.  Obviously they figured out that it was unstable and did something about that...


And what they "did about it" hasn't been around long enough (hundreds of years, per your claim) to prove itself either.

Your claim that film will outlast digital is pure speculation and, frankly, _*VERY*_ hard to believe, given the fact that even though digital image formats and storage methods evolve, they get better with time and are transferable without loss from the old to the new formats.  So, even if JPG stops being the de facto standard, for example, it's not like it's going to happen all of a sudden in a single day and all the images on computers, on the internet, in the cloud, and in storage mediums of every kind will suddenly no longer work and be lost forever, which is the "fear" that this claim, seen many times by film purists, is intended to instill.  I think it's bull.

It takes a single fire, flood, tornado, hurricane, other "act of God", spilled can of chemicals, 3 year old with scissors, or a simple misplacement by a human to lose a negative and print forever.  It takes a world-wide act of electronic destruction to take out all the redundant copies of a digital image floating around on servers and CDs and DVDs and hard drives and more.


----------



## Josh66 (Mar 9, 2013)

Hard drives fail, servers crash, etc...  There are more ways to lose digital files than physical files.  That's what I meant by it lasting longer, as well as the medium physically lasting longer.  I'm not a ****ing retard who thinks that the ability to open a ****ing JPG will magically get turned off one day.

To lose film, you have to physically lose it.  Fire, flood, whatever...


I really didn't think you were such a dick to try to show off (or whatever this is) by examining every post (which I thought were innocent enough) I make line by line...


----------



## Rick58 (Mar 9, 2013)

I thought this was just going to be a friendly conversation. Geeez


----------



## Josh66 (Mar 9, 2013)

Me too...  Who knew, lol.


----------



## runnah (Mar 9, 2013)

O|||||||O said:


> Film (even scanned film) still looks better than digital, IMO.  Megapixels won't change that.



You do realize that once you scan film it becomes digital right? 

Looking better is subjective but if you want to use quantifiable terms the quality of digital resolution has vastly surpasses even the best film.

Not to mention you can add the film look with a click of a mouse.


----------



## Josh66 (Mar 9, 2013)

runnah said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> > Film (even scanned film) still looks better than digital, IMO.  Megapixels won't change that.
> ...



Resolution and "looking good" are two entirely unrelated things.

You do realize that I don't care if my scanned film has become digital, right?

The "film look" presets do not usually look like film...  Yes it can be done, but IMO - if you want the film look, it's easier to just shoot film.


----------



## Buckster (Mar 9, 2013)

O|||||||O said:


> Hard drives fail, servers crash, etc...


But unless ALL of them that have the image ALL crash and die at once, the image survives.  That's the point.



O|||||||O said:


> There are more ways to lose digital files than physical files.  That's what I meant by it lasting longer, as well as the medium physically lasting longer.  I'm not a ****ing retard who thinks that the ability to open a ****ing JPG will magically get turned off one day.


I can make literally THOUSANDS of EXACT copies of the digital negative, the RAW file, and store them in thousands of places around the planet in a couple of hours without leaving my chair, and you'd have to find a way to destroy ALL OF THEM simultaneously to wipe out that image.  All I have to do with yours is put it through a shredder or use a match or pour paint thinner on it, or any of 10,000 other ways of destroying or losing it.  Your claim has no meat behind it, brother.



O|||||||O said:


> To lose film, you have to physically lose it.  Fire, flood, whatever...


Yep, just one time, any one of them, to the one negative you have, and it's gone forever.  And it's happened lots of times throughout the history of film.  It happened to Ansel Adams, just as it's happened to lots of photographers on this very forum who've shot film over the years.  It actually does happen.



O|||||||O said:


> I really didn't think you were such a dick to try to show off (or whatever this is) by examining every post (which I thought were innocent enough) I make line by line...


I'm sorry that it hurts your feelings that I pointed out a few facts that perhaps make your post look a little less informed, but that's life.  If you don't want your opinions called into question, maybe don't put them out there for people to discuss.  After all, you could get your feelings hurt by some *DICK* who has the audacity to have a discussion about it and call your speculative claims into question.


----------



## Rick58 (Mar 9, 2013)

_"You do realize that once you scan film it becomes digital right?"
_That goes all the way back to my original post. Then everyone started getting their testosterone up.


----------



## Josh66 (Mar 9, 2013)

I'm done replying to you.  I didn't even read your latest post...
(Buckster)


----------



## runnah (Mar 9, 2013)

O|||||||O said:


> Resolution and "looking good" are two entirely unrelated things.
> 
> You do realize that I don't care if my scanned film has become digital, right?
> 
> The "film look" presets do not usually look like film...  Yes it can be done, but IMO - if you want the film look, it's easier to just shoot film.



What aspects of film do you consider to make it look better? 

I was just pointing out your little foible. 

Easier than clicking a mouse? Now you are just being difficulty for the sake of it.


----------



## Buckster (Mar 9, 2013)

runnah said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> > Resolution and "looking good" are two entirely unrelated things.
> ...


He's established himself over time here as a film snob, so he can only see and defend one side of these discussions.  He's shown that's true even when he can't back up his claims, even when it isn't actually working for him, even when it doesn't make actual sense.

And if you call any of it into question, you're being a dick, followed by him sticking his fingers in his ears and covering his eyes, saying, "I'm not even reading your posts - lalalalalalalalalaaaaaa - so there!!"

:er:


----------



## Josh66 (Mar 9, 2013)

runnah said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> > Resolution and "looking good" are two entirely unrelated things.
> ...



I just like the look of it - the grain, the texture, all of that.  You know, "the film look".  Hell yeah it's easier to just shoot film - if that look is the end result you want.

Nearly all of my PP is done for me just by my selection of film and developer.

I do shoot some digital too, you know...  One thing I have noticed is that it takes me a lot more time to get digital files "looking good" than it does for film scans.  I shouldn't have to say this, but that is my personal observation - you may have a different experience.


----------



## runnah (Mar 9, 2013)

O|||||||O said:


> I just like the look of it - the grain, the texture, all of that.  You know, "the film look".  Hell yeah it's easier to just shoot film - if that look is the end result you want.
> 
> Nearly all of my PP is done for me just by my selection of film and developer.
> 
> I do shoot some digital too, you know...  One thing I have noticed is that it takes me a lot more time to get digital files "looking good" than it does for film scans.  I shouldn't have to say this, but that is my personal observation - you may have a different experience.



Two points. One, since you cannot provide adequate evidence to support your conclusion about the subject beyond subjective conjecture I will compare it to someone who says chocolate ice cream is the best ice cream there is because it is my favorite. 

Two. Again once you scan a negative or a print it is now digital, thus rendering any film qualities null and void. A scanner uses optics to convert what it "sees" and translate it into the sane digital    1's and 0's a digital camera sees.


----------



## Josh66 (Mar 9, 2013)

runnah said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> > I just like the look of it - the grain, the texture, all of that.  You know, "the film look".  Hell yeah it's easier to just shoot film - if that look is the end result you want.
> ...



Whatever man...

Since when does personal opinion need ****ing "evidence"?

Again - I do not care if scanning my film makes it 'digital'.  And how exactly does that render all film qualities null and void?  If there was a digital sensor that produced the same results I get with film, I would use that - but there is not, so I use film for some stuff.

I really don't get what is so complicated about this...


----------



## BrianV (Mar 9, 2013)

Rick58 said:


> BrianV said:
> 
> 
> > Dark room quipment is cheap these days, prices on Medium Format is lower than ever. It's pretty much bottomed out. Pick up a film kit and enlarger, try it out for yourself.
> ...




My response: this discussion of film versus digital is impossible without the thread degenerating into what this one has become. Soliciting opinions is not possible without the typical flamewar. So- you have all of the equipment for shooting film and digital. The only opinion worth a damn is the one of the person holding the camera, and whether they chose to shoot film or digital that day.

A technical discussion almost never takes place. Film and digital are different media used for the same purpose. Each has strengths and weaknesses. Digital cameras are limited to the sensor built into the body. film cameras- much wider choice, even today. I miss Panatomic-X. It is better than my M Monochrom for resolution and dynamic range. I'll deal with it.

Almost forgot- Digital is much better for Infrared work because the spectral response can be extended out much farther than film. That's what got me into Digital over 30 years ago.


----------



## runnah (Mar 9, 2013)

O|||||||O said:


> Whatever man...
> 
> Since when does personal opinion need ****ing "evidence"?
> 
> ...



Well opinions are fine when you keep them as such. Once you proclaim you opinion as fact is when the waters start to get a bit rough.

I will skip the scanning topic because I cannot seem to articulate it to you in such a manner that you can understand.

There are no complications here, rather I am refuting your statements that film is the superior format for photography. I just have used logic to counter you claims rather than emotion.


----------



## Robin_Usagani (Mar 9, 2013)

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/film-discussion-q/293162-film-digital.html


----------



## Josh66 (Mar 9, 2013)

runnah said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> > Whatever man...
> ...



When did I EVER state my opinions as fact?



Ladies and gentlemen, I am bowing out from this thread at this point - I've said what I have to say, continuing this line of discussion is pointless - I am unsubscribing from this thread after this post.

Buckster, I never expected such childish behavior from you - I lost a lot of respect for you today.

I never said that film was superior to digital - I said that I liked the look of film.  If you like the "film look", the easiest way to get there is to shoot film.


Grow the **** up, guys...


----------



## runnah (Mar 9, 2013)

O|||||||O said:


> When did I EVER state my opinions as fact?
> 
> Ladies and gentlemen, I am bowing out from this thread at this point - I've said what I have to say, continuing this line of discussion is pointless - I am unsubscribing from this thread after this post.
> 
> ...



Sorry to see you go but if you feel that your only recourse at this time is to withdraw  than that is your choice.


----------



## BrianV (Mar 9, 2013)

Film cameras are superior to digital cameras. None of my 30 year old digital stuff works anymore. My 20 year old DSLR still works, but I had to take it apart a couple of times and repair the electronics. If the back-up 80MByte SCSI disk goes out, time to retire it. My 80 year old Leica III works just fine. If the DCS200 makes it to 40, I'll be happy.


----------



## runnah (Mar 9, 2013)

BrianV said:


> Film cameras are superior to digital cameras. None of my 30 year old digital stuff works anymore. My 20 year old DSLR still works, but I had to take it apart a couple of times and repair the electronics. If the back-up 80MByte SCSI disk goes out, time to retire it. My 80 year old Leica III works just fine. If the DCS200 makes it to 40, I'll be happy.



To clarify you are saying that film camera are better because they have less technical issues?

I would say that the comparisons between the inner workings of a modern dslr and a film slr is like comparing the inner workings of an iPad compared to an abacus. So really saying that film cameras are better because they don't break as much is outright bs.


----------



## Buckster (Mar 9, 2013)

Typewriters are superior to computers with keyboards.  None of my 30 year old computers and keyboards work anymore.  My 20 year old computer and keyboard still works, but I had to take it apart a couple of times and repair the electronics.  If the back-up 2TB ESATA disk goes out, time to retire it.  My 80 year old Remington typewriter works just fine.  If the Logitech K250 makes it to 40, I'll be happy.


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 9, 2013)

O|||||||O said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > O|||||||O said:
> ...



At 8:32 pm this evening when you wrote this: "Film also lasts longer - that's something to consider too."

You were appropriately challenged for that statement and you responded defensively and belligerently. I believe Buckster on the other hand has behaved as the gentleman he's oft proven himself to be.

Joe


----------



## Buckster (Mar 9, 2013)

O|||||||O said:


> Buckster, I never expected such childish behavior from you - I lost a lot of respect for you today.


I'm crushed...

To discover that you're so thin-skinned that you have to do the childish "I CAN'T HEEEEAAARRR YOUUUUUU!!!!" and take your toys and go home because you can't take seeing the other side of your opinions.



O|||||||O said:


> Grow the **** up, guys...


That's good advice for you to take a giant spoonful of yourself, as you plug your ears and snatch up your ball and stomp off in a huff.


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 9, 2013)

Sw1tchFX said:


> Rick58 said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone who has read my posts in the past knows I have way more year knotches in my film belt, then digital. In fact. I often feel myself being lured back into playing with film. But, the question in my mind always arises...If I'm going to take a negative, and scan it into pixels, then manipulate it in any of the software choices. Why bother? As much as I have the urge to dust off my film gear, I can never justify it in my mind...UNLESS...I'm would go full out, and reopen a darkroom. But even then, the print would need to be scanned to share, on this board for example. Any thoughts?
> ...



This is all rubbish and nonsense except of course for the last item -- after they drop the bomb you can pick up a roll of film for your Hassy at Walgreens.

Joe


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 9, 2013)

I guess the Mods don't work this late on Saturday night -- time for the lock.

Joe


----------



## runnah (Mar 9, 2013)

Ha I must have missed that post. What a nutter!


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 9, 2013)

Buckster said:


> Typewriters are superior to computers with keyboards.  None of my 30 year old computers and keyboards work anymore.  My 20 year old computer and keyboard still works, but I had to take it apart a couple of times and repair the electronics.  If the back-up 2TB ESATA disk goes out, time to retire it.  My 80 year old Remington typewriter works just fine.  If the Logitech K250 makes it to 40, I'll be happy.



Buckster, if it wasn't so late I'd go out and saddle up the horse, ride up there and buy you a beer.

Joe


----------



## runnah (Mar 9, 2013)

Ysarex said:


> I guess the Mods don't work this late on Saturday night -- time for the lock.
> 
> Joe



I will call this a win.


----------



## Robin_Usagani (Mar 9, 2013)

digital vs film discussions always go downhill.


----------



## Rick58 (Mar 9, 2013)

Yep, might as well lock it down.  It's a shame everyones individual opinion has to be the only one worthly of being written in stone.


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 9, 2013)

jake337 said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > Not to mention that digital quality has surpassed film.
> ...



4x5 view cameras are also digital. I'm using one right now.


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 9, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> jake337 said:
> 
> 
> > runnah said:
> ...



That's exactly right. And if you want a medium format camera that swats down anything that uses 120 roll film then get one of these: Medium format camera systems for pro photographers

Joe


----------



## Buckster (Mar 9, 2013)

Sw1tchFX said:


> If there's nuclear war, you could still go out with your Leica, Hasselblad, or Nikon F and document the new human condition. EMP's from the nukes would have rendered digital cameras useless.


Yeah, that's why digital cameras don't work in Japan, especially around Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  Everybody knows that EMP's from nukes last forever, not just the brief few moments during the blast - a notion popularized by actual science.


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 9, 2013)

Ysarex said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > jake337 said:
> ...



I recently read a review comparing the IQ160 to the D800, and the D800 actually held up extremely well, and costs $37,000 less lol.


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 9, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > Ballistics said:
> ...



Yeah, but if you think a retro Leica makes you look cool just think what a $40,000.00 camera will do for your image.

Joe


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Mar 9, 2013)

Buckster said:


> Sw1tchFX said:
> 
> 
> > If there's nuclear war, you could still go out with your Leica, Hasselblad, or Nikon F and document the new human condition. EMP's from the nukes would have rendered digital cameras useless.
> ...


God damn and I thought I was a dick. Do you just not understand sarcasm when you read it?


----------



## Buckster (Mar 9, 2013)

Ysarex said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > Ysarex said:
> ...


I hear tell that it's a serious chick-magnet.


----------



## Buckster (Mar 9, 2013)

Sw1tchFX said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > Sw1tchFX said:
> ...


If it makes you feel any better, they don't work in certain parts of New Mexico or Nevada either.  And the Island of Bikini?  Forget about it.

By the way, what would you call my response (Hint: Starts with "Sar" and ends with "asm" - you'll have to figure out what's in the middle).


----------



## LungFish (Mar 9, 2013)

Back to the original question (which had nothing to do with whether film or digital is better)

IMO, if you recorded the image on film, then it's film. However if you thinkyou are doing things the _traditional_ way by scanning film, then that's a bit delusional.

If it really bothers you, get the lab to do the prints and tell yourself they used a darkroom, even though you know deep down that they didn't.


----------



## BrianV (Mar 10, 2013)

runnah said:


> BrianV said:
> 
> 
> > Film cameras are superior to digital cameras. None of my 30 year old digital stuff works anymore. My 20 year old DSLR still works, but I had to take it apart a couple of times and repair the electronics. If the back-up 80MByte SCSI disk goes out, time to retire it. My 80 year old Leica III works just fine. If the DCS200 makes it to 40, I'll be happy.
> ...



You are wrong. "Better" in terms of MTBF, film cameras are better. Film cameras are easier and less expensive to repair. Get a quote for repairing a film camera versus getting a digital camera repaired. 

MTBF and cost to repair- film cameras last longer and cost less to service.

Original question- a professional scanner can out-resolve the best film, and the best film can out-resolve top-end commercial DSLR's. 35 years ago the best film scanners were very big and expensive. But it did a very good job scanning film. Using a high-end consumer-oriented scanner, "okay results". Having them scanned in professionally- expensive.


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 10, 2013)

Ysarex said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > Ysarex said:
> ...



What? What are you even talking about?


----------



## BrianV (Mar 10, 2013)

Digital camera backs for Medium Format cameras are in the 80MPixel range, cost $40K. They ave been around for a while. They are usually tied to using in a studio.


----------



## jake337 (Mar 10, 2013)

You can create images with film in a camera.

You can create images with a digital sensor in a camera.

You can create images with film then transfer into the digital realm.

One is not better than the other, just a different medium choice.


It's all photography, let's just have some fun!


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 10, 2013)

BrianV said:


> Digital camera backs for Medium Format cameras are in the 80MPixel range, cost $40K. They ave been around for a while. They are usually tied to using in a studio.



I'm asking Ysarex about his comment of using a retro leica to look cool. I don't use a retro Leica, I use a view camera with a digital back because I have to. I personally hate using it.
My comment was to Jake who talked about why film was "different" because of what 4x5 view cameras are capable of. Meanwhile, those same cameras are also digital.


----------



## jake337 (Mar 10, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> BrianV said:
> 
> 
> > Digital camera backs for Medium Format cameras are in the 80MPixel range, cost $40K. They ave been around for a while. They are usually tied to using in a studio.
> ...



Yes, yes, yes! I want! I want!

I want so many things photography related but at the end of the day I have a Wife, son and a baby girl coming in July so I have to snap out of "the wants" and focus on "the needs".


But are those 4x5 digital backs true 4x5 mediums? &nbsp;Does the digital sensors in those backs really 4x5, 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 8x10, etc?

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5299/5388575653_f27fcd1064_o.jpg


----------



## BrianV (Mar 10, 2013)

The digital backs have a crop factor. You can make a larger "back" by "stitching" images from several detectors together. I've seen results from 100MPixel cameras made over 12 years ago. Monochrome. Working in a research lab for 35 years, you see some "cool-stuff". Leica- some of the scientists used to buy Leica and Nikon RF lenses just to take them apart and use the individual components on an optical bench. cheaper than having them made.

Canon made a prototype camera with a 120MPixel APS-C sized sensor, 2~3 years ago? Digital does not need more megapixels to catch up with film, the sensors need improved dynamic range especially on the high-end, "well-Capacity" which affects blown-highlights. The Nikon D4 "just 16MPixel" sensor has a large well-capacity. So does film.


----------



## skieur (Mar 10, 2013)

Rick58 said:


> I've also heard that, but, what happens when you move into MF or even LF. Even back in the film days, I did very little 35mm B&W due to the clarity of MF and LF compared to 35mm.
> 
> It would be interesting to know where this stands with the higher MP cameras today.



Here is an interesting comparison of MP film with 35mm digital. Shootout


----------



## runnah (Mar 10, 2013)

Sorry I fell asleep last night before I responded any more.

Bringing up large format cameras as an argument for film superiority is a bit of a stretch. 

Anyways there will always be people who say that carburetors are the best type of fuel injection method. But we all know it isn't. It's less powerful and less efficient but you have people who swear that it is better.

As long as you don't go around claiming that film is better for a FACT, but only as an opinion.


----------



## runnah (Mar 10, 2013)

skieur said:


> Here is an interesting comparison of MP film with 35mm digital. Shootout



Interesting but a bit dated.


----------



## jake337 (Mar 10, 2013)

runnah said:


> Sorry I fell asleep last night before I responded any more.
> 
> Bringing up large format cameras as an argument for film superiority is a bit of a stretch.
> 
> ...



Of course, it is not about "superiority'.  It is, in my mind, about the actual size of the medium used.  Well yeah, you can throw a 800mm lens on a 24x36 medium but your standing hundreds of yards away.  

Maybe I am missing something but is it even possible to get the same magnification/compression with 35mm, or even currrent MF/LF digital, as one can get with a 8x10 film setup.

Remember, I'm not talking about resolution or sharpness.


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 10, 2013)

jake337 said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > BrianV said:
> ...



It is a straight up view camera. This is the one I use:

Horseman LD Pro View Camera 23151 B&H Photo Video

I use it with the Hasselblad Imacon V96C Digital Back.


----------



## jake337 (Mar 10, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> jake337 said:
> 
> 
> > Ballistics said:
> ...




Ok then what is the physical sensor size in that back?  37cmx37cm


----------



## skieur (Mar 10, 2013)

runnah said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > Here is an interesting comparison of MP film with 35mm digital. Shootout
> ...



True, but I doubt that the quality of film has drastically improved since that comparison.


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 10, 2013)

jake337 said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > jake337 said:
> ...




It's a 4x5 back. The sensor is the exact same size as the film. You know how these digital backs work right? You have to focus and frame it in the window, then slide the back over to take place of the film.


----------



## jake337 (Mar 10, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> jake337 said:
> 
> 
> > Ballistics said:
> ...




I understand how it works.  I was under the impression it is a roughly  37x37mm sensor whereas, in mm, a 4x5 film strip is roughly 100x125mm.

I also thought the largest single capture digital back was the IQ280 which measures roughly 40x53mm.

An 8x10 piece of film would measure 2540x2032mm or 20x25cm.


Don't get me wrong, if I had the money I would have a Sinar P3 with an IQ280 back on it right now!!  But as it is I don't see myself using, or affording, that type of equipment in any near future.  So if I want the magnification of a large format medium size then I have to shoot large format film.  Unless I want to sit behind a computer stitching many images together.


 I hope your not taking any of this the wrong way.  Just discussing.  I'm pretty damned jealous of your current setup.  How is it working outdoors or is it stirctly a indoor studio setup?


----------



## terri (Mar 12, 2013)

Rick58 said:


> Anyone who has read my posts in the past knows I have way more year knotches in my film belt, then digital. In fact. I often feel myself being lured back into playing with film. But, the question in my mind always arises...If I'm going to take a negative, and scan it into pixels, then manipulate it in any of the software choices. Why bother? As much as I have the urge to dust off my film gear, I can never justify it in my mind...UNLESS...I'm would go full out, and reopen a darkroom. But even then, the print would need to be scanned to share, on this board for example. Any thoughts?


I've locked the thread, Rick, since it turned ugly, and even though it's been a couple of days it wouldn't take much to spark more nonsense.    

Rick, my own thoughts are that I enjoy film, handling film, developing film, and happen to like the quiet dimness of the darkroom in which to create.   The arguments about pixel quality, the old "well, if you scan it then it's digital anyway" argument, are total plonk to me.   Meaningless.   I shoot film because that's my approach to get what I want, to go work alternative photographic processes.    I've done a couple of things making digital negs, I'm not a total Luddite.      But working on computers represents...well, _work_ to me.    It's what I did on the job, stare into a screen and screw around with a mouse all day.   uke:      It holds no appeal to me as a creative outlet.    I like the darkroom, I like my drafting table, and using graphic inks for bromoil prints, photo oils, pencils, pastels for hand coloring, and various developers for things like lith prints, plus a lot of other things I've not even had time to explore.   That's what holding a good negative in hand means to me...a starting point.         I just like the tactile nature of working with these materials; I like engaging my senses into the creation of art.

So, my personal opinion is that working digitally is screamingly boring.   Call me a film snob/purist?   Oh, bite me, all you reverse-digital snobs.    When it comes to artistic expression, to each his own, right?   :greenpbl:   

If you just don't like the idea of the hands-on work to make prints, you probably won't be happy.   If you are fine doing it in front of the computer, you'll get where you want to go.


----------

