Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 85

Thread: Sick of Digital, Going back to Film?

  1. #21
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    706

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nightpiper
    how about vinyl records vs cd? no doubt cd is accepted in the vast majority, but LP didn't die. if u care to take 5mins & listen to a properly setup vinyl system, u will realise that LP still has some sparkles. technically, the 6MP on DSLR still can't match film, but in practice, that 6MP is above our acceptance threshold. that's what make plpe think that its better than film. why not try using a 6MP image file & blow it up to 16x20? u will see that 35mm film produces a much more pleasent & forgiving look. sure, u can use a 22MP m.format to do it but at what cost?

    i must agree that as time goes by, film user will be force to migrate to the digital camp, myself included. but at the mean time, let those who miss film enjoy its last glorious moments.
    Film is film and digital is digital. There is still a place for both because they are different mediums. Why get stuck up on which will replace which or for that matter whether it will be replaced at all! Maybe you should try shooting with traditional B&W films and slides and then you compare whether they can be replace with digital.

    I started off as a film user and now am using digital. But I must say film will still remain for me. Nothing like shooting with film.

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Behind the viewfinder...
    Posts
    5,851

    Default

    agree... BnWs are the best on film

  3. #23
    Deregistered
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    SengKang
    Posts
    78

    Default

    Digital & Films?Depend on which one you like or maybe lets say which one will give U the Quality U wan.For me I would say both have their pros and cons,thinking of the films U have to developed them and the cost is much higher compare to Digital but Quality wise....Films has them, The good things about Digital is that is got Previews for U to see so dont have to worry for the images.Many people says that Digital Will replace Films ,it sound true to me but dont forget ,most of them uses a Film Camera as a BackUp.So is up to U weather U wish to choose what U wan!

  4. #24

    Default

    For a fairer comparision, lets do some quick calculations based on

    1. The cost of each exposure. If you are a professional, and depending on what you do for a living, going digital may be a good solution. For the many many amatuers who take only snapshots, does it matter if you use digital or a film PnS?

    2. The residual value of the equpitment over time. Depends on demad and supply, but a less popular film body may not fetch a better resale value. Digital bodies depreciate fast regardless of the model, as the added factor is technology.

    3. The cost of quality of output. Some say digital will be better, but I don't agree with this as it depends on the equiptment. Can digital produce the 3D effect that we so often see with manual focus zeiss glass and slides? Surely, it depends on the eqiuptment as well as the experience of the user, not either one of the other. But if you weigh the cost to attain the same output, which do you think will cost more?

    4. Efficiency. The value of the time saved for some other purpose of economic value. Surely, digital wins hands down in most cases as it does not require the steps of developing a roll of film, and going through the process of scanning.

    5. The immeasurable joy from film. Film enthusiasts will understand this whereas the digital camp will not understand it one bit/byte.

    Is film better, I would say no. Is digital better, I would not conclude on that either. At the moment, and in the forseeble future, I don't think that we will see either one that will win hands down. At the moment, it is a "to each his own" situation.

    P.S. Of course, there are the qualitative factors that we have not taken into consideration. e.g. I can switch to whatever ISO setting I choose with a digital body, can't say the same with a film body.

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,911

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nightpiper
    technically, the 6MP on DSLR still can't match film, but in practice, that 6MP is above our acceptance threshold. that's what make plpe think that its better than film. why not try using a 6MP image file & blow it up to 16x20? u will see that 35mm film produces a much more pleasent & forgiving look.
    Why aye, one of the great misconceptions of the modern world. 6mp matches film. Well it doesn't match film in certain areas, but perceptually, it exceeds film. I have taken a 6mp image (strictly speaking, a 5.2mp image), enlarged to 20x24 (24x36 cropped) and 20x30, and also Provia and Velvia trannies to 20x30. Not just me, but all the photographers at the camera club (think old grey traditionalists) picked out the prints from the digital originals as being better by quite some way.

    I haven't repeated the same experiment, but I can also honestly say that I've done a 13x19 out of my 14mp digital file that easily matches APX25 in 645 to 16x20 in terms of resolution.

    I will agree that slides on a light table are great, which is why I got a 5x4. I don't agree with using a loupe to look at details... yes great, but I'd rather have a 19" screen to look at more details any day. Film is great, I cut my teeth on film, but its practicalities are being overshadowed by digital, and for me the only reason I can see to shoot film (light table aside) is the price. If you can grapple with the price of digital, then well...

    As for white balance... well basically, last time you paid a lab to do the white balance for you, now you have to do it yourself. That said, I can't remember the last time I had to colour correct a JPG because I always take care of WB first, at the time of capture. And alternatively when I shoot raw I don't bother with WB (although I should really...) and the ability to control that in the post process is actually great fun. A bit like darkroom work where you get the chance to be a bit creative.

  6. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jed
    Not just me, but all the photographers at the camera club (think old grey traditionalists) picked out the prints from the digital originals as being better by quite some way.
    Better in what way? How and in what way was it better than slide? Sharpness? Feel? Look? Effect? Colours? Tones? Contrast? Kinda curious to know.

  7. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Clementi
    Posts
    6,580

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jed
    Why aye, one of the great misconceptions of the modern world. 6mp matches film. Well it doesn't match film in certain areas, but perceptually, it exceeds film. I have taken a 6mp image (strictly speaking, a 5.2mp image), enlarged to 20x24 (24x36 cropped) and 20x30, and also Provia and Velvia trannies to 20x30. Not just me, but all the photographers at the camera club (think old grey traditionalists) picked out the prints from the digital originals as being better by quite some way.

    This is a really interesting experiment....
    What was the reaction of the members when u disclosed the medium that made each enlargement? Were the shots of the same subject? Just curious....

  8. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jed
    I have taken a 6mp image (strictly speaking, a 5.2mp image), enlarged to 20x24 (24x36 cropped) and 20x30, and also Provia and Velvia trannies to 20x30. Not just me, but all the photographers at the camera club (think old grey traditionalists) picked out the prints from the digital originals as being better by quite some way.

    I haven't repeated the same experiment, but I can also honestly say that I've done a 13x19 out of my 14mp digital file that easily matches APX25 in 645 to 16x20 in terms of resolution.

    if u r using D1x, then no count lah. that cam can scale to 10MP in post processing. also 14MP no count. i m talking about common consumer affordable DSLR (less then $2.8k) strictly with 6MP output. going thru some enlargement s/w to increase pixels also not counted.

    but like u say, the whole work flow of digital is undisputable. common plpe will just blow pics to 8x12 usually, that's why i mention acceptance threshold.

    btw, r we all off topic already?

  9. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,911

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Parchiao
    Better in what way? How and in what way was it better than slide? Sharpness? Feel? Look? Effect? Colours? Tones? Contrast? Kinda curious to know.
    Sharpness: Definitely digital.

    Feel: Subjective.

    Look: Definitely digital, in terms of general look. You look at both and the digital looks cleaner, sharper, better defined.

    Tones: Similar-ish.

    Contrast: Similar-ish.

    Subjects were wildlife (three ducks, one rhino). So not really testing contrast/tone issues. Still have the prints sitting in a tube in my room

  10. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,911

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TME
    This is a really interesting experiment....
    What was the reaction of the members when u disclosed the medium that made each enlargement? Were the shots of the same subject? Just curious....
    Not directly the same subject no, but similar (ie ducks) taken at the same outing, under similar conditions, with the same lens.

  11. #31

    Default

    also like i mentioned in the earlier post, at what cost? so if a D1x or a 14n can give 20x30, how much it cost? M.format with 16MP digital backs cost alot too but sure have no problems blowing pics up to 20x30.

    anyway, we r going too off topic already. this becomes a film vs digital debate.

  12. #32

    Default

    I find it hilarious that some of you complain about too much to post process. It's like the camera forced you to take all those pictures?

    What, you can't think for yourself now? Blame it on everything but yourself. Don't wanna post process, don't shoot so much.

  13. #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,911

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by nightpiper
    if u r using D1x, then no count lah. that cam can scale to 10MP in post processing. also 14MP no count. i m talking about common consumer affordable DSLR (less then $2.8k) strictly with 6MP output. going thru some enlargement s/w to increase pixels also not counted.
    Why no count? The D1x is a 5.2mp camera, period. In fact, it's not even a true 5.2mp camera, it arrives at its final resolution using technical wizardry, but that cannot invent pixels. In terms of vertical resolution, it is really only a 2.7mp camera. The 10mp is not real pixels at all. Half of that is completely interpolated.

    14mp no count? Why not? And I am fair, I didn't compare it to 35mm film, I compared it to 645.

    Oh, you were only talking about "common consumer affordable DSLR (less than $2.8k) strictly with 6mp output?" Really... now where in your original post did you say this? If you meant that, you really should have said it. Mindreading is sadly not one of my skills, nor do I presume the other readers out there to be particularly skilled mind readers.

    Speaking of strictly 6mp output, a DSLR with strictly 6mp output should outperform a D1x. Which renders my test actually disadvantageous to 6mp class DSLRs.

    Also, why is "going thru some enlargement s/w to increase pixels also not counted"? Interpolation doesn't add anything to an image at all, so it doesn't add any quality. You can also interpolate film.

  14. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,911

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nightpiper
    also like i mentioned in the earlier post, at what cost? so if a D1x or a 14n can give 20x30, how much it cost? M.format with 16MP digital backs cost alot too but sure have no problems blowing pics up to 20x30.
    Not any more than it costs to blow up a neg or tranny to the same size. If your lab charges you more, then you need a new lab.

    It's quite clear to me that you have no idea how much it costs to get stuff printed to that size. And also therefore that you have never "(tried) using a 6MP image file & blow it up to 16x20" otherwise you'd know it doesn't cost more, and you'd also know it doesn't look any worse than the equivalent film enlargement.

    So don't make claims about something that you haven't done. You can bluff, I've called it.

  15. #35

    Default

    "the photographers at the camera club (think old grey traditionalists) picked out the prints from the digital originals as being better by quite some way."

    Yea right.

  16. #36
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    north
    Posts
    1,310

    Default

    when i first got digital, i was shooting aay almost blinedly at times cos no cos and can delete later or choose best from 5-6 shots.

    then i got sick of choosing and deleting pictures. now although still shooting digital, i shoot selectively like what i used to do with film.

    i like the fact that i get to control the white balance and sharpness etc rather then the lab to do it.

    for white balance i just custom at daylight ( flash) and shoot at custom for all situation. then it behaves like film. only adjust white balance when i think tis necessary.

    for events, digital is wonderful....can afford to shoot more and print selectively and no post processing required. lab can do it.

    for studio shoots....digital is great....can correct blemish in a blink and adjust contrast, sharpness etc...then send for print.

    film? i still think that fantasitc skin tones can be easily acheived with it. yet i have to add that clients are more happy when they see a scar or pimple being remove from their face in the picture then a beautiful skin tone

    lat but not least, i must say that i am also starting to feel that digital is just like that...and looking to get some film stuff again...

  17. #37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jed
    Sharpness: Definitely digital.

    Feel: Subjective.

    Look: Definitely digital, in terms of general look. You look at both and the digital looks cleaner, sharper, better defined.

    Tones: Similar-ish.

    Contrast: Similar-ish.

    Subjects were wildlife (three ducks, one rhino). So not really testing contrast/tone issues. Still have the prints sitting in a tube in my room
    Sharpness digital? You ok or not? My firend uses a 6MP dslr and at 8x10 I can already see facial skin tones abberating.

  18. #38
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    singapore
    Posts
    431

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by coke21
    What if you took the time to compose etc before snapping when using a DSLR? Sounds to me more like the photographer is ill disciplined rather then the "disadvantage" of a DSLR itself...
    dun tell me that u do not need to compose when u use digital?

  19. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jed
    Why no count? The D1x is a 5.2mp camera, period. In fact, it's not even a true 5.2mp camera, it arrives at its final resolution using technical wizardry, but that cannot invent pixels. In terms of vertical resolution, it is really only a 2.7mp camera. The 10mp is not real pixels at all. Half of that is completely interpolated.

    14mp no count? Why not? And I am fair, I didn't compare it to 35mm film, I compared it to 645.

    Oh, you were only talking about "common consumer affordable DSLR (less than $2.8k) strictly with 6mp output?" Really... now where in your original post did you say this? If you meant that, you really should have said it. Mindreading is sadly not one of my skills, nor do I presume the other readers out there to be particularly skilled mind readers.

    Speaking of strictly 6mp output, a DSLR with strictly 6mp output should outperform a D1x. Which renders my test actually disadvantageous to 6mp class DSLRs.

    Also, why is "going thru some enlargement s/w to increase pixels also not counted"? Interpolation doesn't add anything to an image at all, so it doesn't add any quality. You can also interpolate film.

    ok, let me apologise for not making it clear in the 1st place. by looking at the thread starter, i presume he is using consumer grade (>$2.8k) equipment here. ok, u can bomb me about presuming.

    let's move on. next, if interpolation doesn't add anything to the image, can u explain the file size? to be fair, did u interpolate the film that u had enlarged? can u also explain why after interpolating, the print outs are no longer pixelated?

    anyone who reads the D1x brochure will know that its horizontal pixels are more than its vertical, & the pixels are elongated, so lets not get too technical about what u know. i said not counted becos the D1x is of a different class on its own, when u use D1x, u are looking at a machine with very advance image manipulation technique. btw, if u really want to be technically precise, don't process the image & leave in its original distorted proportion. why i say this is becos, u seems to be very precise about that 2.7MP. anyway, i've seen a 3.3 MP cam print 8x10 & its pixelated, i can't accept such quality. again, i must stress that D1x is a different class on its own, so lets not argue about why a 2.7MP vertical resolution can make perfect 8x10 prints.

    next, i must apologise for not making myself clear about the cost. i m refering to the cost of equipment in order to get a 16x20 print of good quality, ie, no pixelation.

    since u are the moderator, lets be a bit more objective. a nikon F55 with 28-105 cost less than $1.5k. a D1x with the same 28-105 , i presume again, is around $7k. don't bomb me of i get the pricing wrong. the 300D with a 28-105 is around $2.5k, i presume. so which is more cost effective? image quality wise, how much is the F55 lagging D1x? & what are their equipment price different?

    with the price of D1x, anyone can get a basic M.format & print 20x30 like u mentioned, but again, Mformat is a different class, so i m leaving it out too.

    anyway, this is a friendly discussion so lets not get too worked out.

    cheers!

  20. #40
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    GEYLAND LOR 15 LO
    Posts
    1,159

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by engineermunn
    Alright,

    Who's with me here? Right now, I'm getting quite sick of the never-ending advances in digital photography. Comes to a point when you start asking yourself if digital is "getting there" yet. It seems that when everyone is saying that digital is on par with film cameras, some new digital model comes out which beats the rest of the models in the market.

    ANd the costs in keeping up with digital technology! wah biang eh....

    I'm sure film cameras are still the best. What with "modern tech" in scanning, I'm sure the workflow will not change much.

    I'm 80% sure I wanna go back to film. Anyone with me?
    I am using film cameras all the while.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •