Death of film slr???
- Thread starter Ah meng
- Start date
- Status
renaissance_myth
Senior Member
film still beats digital hands down dun they? :dunno:
regards
regards
When Sony Music released Billy Joel 52nd Street CD, the first music CD in the industry and some people declaring that death of vinyl album and to be replaced by CD. But after so many years the vinyl still spinning. Ask any audiophile here and they will tell you why they love vinyl sound rather than the CD. The same thing going to apply to Photography. Ask the serious photographer do they prefer film or digital image. I think most of them will tell you film. Is the feel that count.
As far as the consumer and professional market goes I think film will be eventually reduced to a specialised niche market like the vinyl records.
Film will never be dead....but it will be overlooked by all but the most hardcore photographers in place of the more convinent digital medium.
Film will never be dead....but it will be overlooked by all but the most hardcore photographers in place of the more convinent digital medium.
M
Merv
Guest
I agree with BraveHart...
just like what happened to b/w film when colour film came out....
it's still here although used for 'special' occasions
just like what happened to b/w film when colour film came out....
it's still here although used for 'special' occasions
i sold off my digital body to revert back to all-film. why? cos after some extensive usage, i feel digital still has a long way to go before it can reach the levels of film. not in terms of megapixels or file size (that one is more or less equivalent) but in terms of colour tones and dynamic range.
just my 2 cents.
just my 2 cents.
Good say, Larry. :thumbsup:Originally posted by Larry
i sold off my digital body to revert back to all-film. why? cos after some extensive usage, i feel digital still has a long way to go before it can reach the levels of film. not in terms of megapixels or file size (that one is more or less equivalent) but in terms of colour tones and dynamic range.
just my 2 cents.
Long live the film.
Hmm.... I feel there's still a long way to go before digital can fully replace film. I use both medium and although in terms of convenience, that's no doubt digital is champs but in terms of picture quality-wise, film still wins hands down.
Firstly, in terms of resolution. The image formed on film is on the molecular level, unless you can make CCD sensors that's molecular in size, you will never get the kind of resolution you get from film. Even if it's a 10+ megapixel camera like the EOS 1Ds,
users will tell you that it still can't replicate the quality you get from film like Velvia at ISO 50.
Secondly, for low light situations, I feel that digital still do not perform as well as high-speed films, noise, colour reproduction etc etc. The technology of high-speed film is also constantly improving too, you know. For example, try out a roll of Fuji NPZ 800 and you will find that the reputation of high-speed film being grainy is slowly being changed.
Lastly, we all know that films can be difficult to use, especially for slides. Exposure lattitude, different film characteristics, different reaction to light temp etc etc. For the discerning photographers, using film will still be the ultimate test of photographic skills as compared to digital. Also the different results from different films contributes to the diversity of styles and signatures which photographers use to identify themselves.
Firstly, in terms of resolution. The image formed on film is on the molecular level, unless you can make CCD sensors that's molecular in size, you will never get the kind of resolution you get from film. Even if it's a 10+ megapixel camera like the EOS 1Ds,
users will tell you that it still can't replicate the quality you get from film like Velvia at ISO 50.
Secondly, for low light situations, I feel that digital still do not perform as well as high-speed films, noise, colour reproduction etc etc. The technology of high-speed film is also constantly improving too, you know. For example, try out a roll of Fuji NPZ 800 and you will find that the reputation of high-speed film being grainy is slowly being changed.
Lastly, we all know that films can be difficult to use, especially for slides. Exposure lattitude, different film characteristics, different reaction to light temp etc etc. For the discerning photographers, using film will still be the ultimate test of photographic skills as compared to digital. Also the different results from different films contributes to the diversity of styles and signatures which photographers use to identify themselves.
Unfortunately, your comments are a little off the mark. Take a look at some samples from a D1X (which is considered old news)? In terms of resolution, it can tolerate greater enlargements than even the best slide film, due to lack of grain, and at high speeds, NPZ 800 or Press 800 is soundly beaten by a D1X at ISO 800.
Apologies to CK, but here's an example:
http://ckng.clubsnap.org/funstuff/D1x_vs_Provia400F/
While admittedly a bit biased towards the D1X, it does show how far digital has come.
In terms of learning exposure, with digital is tricky in its own way, given how easily the images clip. So I'd agree with Larry in saying that digital has a long way to go, but that's in other areas.
YS Lee, I'm afraid comparisions like these are not very equal.
This is because when film is digitalised, it becomes a 2nd generation image, you have to consider the CCD of the scanner, the calibrations of the scanner, and sometimes, even the calibrations of the monitor you view on. It also goes to say that
it isn't very equal to compare a print from a digital shot to a one that's conventionally printed, since the results of a digital print depends on the quality of the printer.
And about the parts about slide films, hmmm..... I've never seen a print from a digital print that has beaten the colour saturation, sharpness and atmosphere of a slide to print enlargement. So if there is, I'm afraid you have to show me to convince me.
And I'm not sure what you meant from the lack of grains.
Let's say for the D1x, it has 5.9 effective pixels on the CCD, which means 5.9 million points to form a image. You compare this to the chemical emulsion on a 35mm slide, each molecule on the surface reacts to different levels of photon activation to create the image.
Which effectively means each molecule forms a point in the image on the slide. In chemistry terms, this means at least 3 times more points to form an image, so how can there be a lack of grains?
Maybe my comprehension of how films work isn't correct, but hey,
as long as I get the picture I want, I'm not really choosy about digital or film really.
This is because when film is digitalised, it becomes a 2nd generation image, you have to consider the CCD of the scanner, the calibrations of the scanner, and sometimes, even the calibrations of the monitor you view on. It also goes to say that
it isn't very equal to compare a print from a digital shot to a one that's conventionally printed, since the results of a digital print depends on the quality of the printer.
And about the parts about slide films, hmmm..... I've never seen a print from a digital print that has beaten the colour saturation, sharpness and atmosphere of a slide to print enlargement. So if there is, I'm afraid you have to show me to convince me.
And I'm not sure what you meant from the lack of grains.
Let's say for the D1x, it has 5.9 effective pixels on the CCD, which means 5.9 million points to form a image. You compare this to the chemical emulsion on a 35mm slide, each molecule on the surface reacts to different levels of photon activation to create the image.
Which effectively means each molecule forms a point in the image on the slide. In chemistry terms, this means at least 3 times more points to form an image, so how can there be a lack of grains?
Maybe my comprehension of how films work isn't correct, but hey,
as long as I get the picture I want, I'm not really choosy about digital or film really.
No offense, but I rather find that comparision photo a bit questionable. Take a look.
http://home.pacific.net.sg/~azimuth/her.jpg
This was scanned from a 3R print of a picture taken on Fujipress 800. To keep the comparision equal, it was cropped to the same size as the bird (a heron?) picture, no unsharp mask, and no correction on the scanner either. Consider this, a film frame is 24 by 36mm, a 3R print is roughly 88 by 127mm, which is 13 times the area of a film frame. If my 300dpi flatbed scanner can give this result, I'm sure dedicate slide scanners can do much better.
I've scanned plenty of slides (including Provia 400F) using slide scanners, and nothing looks like the picture you have linked to.
That picture looks like it's either a bad scan, or it was improperly washed.
http://home.pacific.net.sg/~azimuth/her.jpg
This was scanned from a 3R print of a picture taken on Fujipress 800. To keep the comparision equal, it was cropped to the same size as the bird (a heron?) picture, no unsharp mask, and no correction on the scanner either. Consider this, a film frame is 24 by 36mm, a 3R print is roughly 88 by 127mm, which is 13 times the area of a film frame. If my 300dpi flatbed scanner can give this result, I'm sure dedicate slide scanners can do much better.
I've scanned plenty of slides (including Provia 400F) using slide scanners, and nothing looks like the picture you have linked to.
That picture looks like it's either a bad scan, or it was improperly washed.
K
Kiwi
Guest
Yessss!!!
I tend to agree with what Prismatic says... Contrary to what some say, in this Forum and elsewhere, to me, digital prints cannot beat the color saturation and sharpness of good pro slide films.
As for grain to noise comparison, pls correct me if I'm wrong but I read somewhere that films have the digital equivalent of being 20MP or so?
I use both mediums too and if money is not a problem (films n processing), i'd never touch digital. The only great thing about digital is you could shoot and shoot till you get the image you want for sure and delete the rest.
For printing, like to share your photos with friends and families, I still love print films. Convenient. I never quite see digital as a means to do bulk prints.
I remember a National Geographic photographer who came to Singapore last year. Someone asked him does NG use digital? He said no. All films. Personally, he didn't think digital technology for prints is anywhere near films yet. In future? No one call tell. But for sure not now.
Moreover, the prices of digital cameras are still not as economical as equivalent film cameras.
So Ah Meng, I doubt Canon and Nikon will stop producing film SLRs.
So many points to address. Sorry if I miss anything.
Heh, I did say it was a bit biased towards the D1X. However I've scanned a fair amount of film myself, and while it depends on the film used, the conditions shot, etc, there are times when digital reigns supreme. Maybe it's my scanner.. but I doubt a better scanner will improve things much.
Regarding lack of grain, I think you've just seen it. Alternatively I could show you shots scanned from a Frontier machine (which all in all was likely to have printed your photo you linked). The grains are visible compared to a shot from a digital SLR.
Film doesn't create images with a single molecule as the smallest element of an image; a look at film under a microscope will confirm it. Certainly the grain sizes are bigger than a molecule.
Finally, I'd like to address the comparison between prints from slides and prints from digital; there's a reason why machines like the Frontier are so popular (hint: speed and quality), and I think quite a fair amount of people can testify to that. In effect that also means your slide has been digitally scanned in first, which in effect makes the comparison quite similar. From prints printed in this way, I fail to see any difference in slide or digital. In fact digital looks better at times (again, high ISO at great enlargements). Again much of this depends on the photographer; a crap photog shooting digital isn't going to get much results.
Kiwi, I agree with your point about the prices if you're talking about digital SLRs, but for point and shoots I think they're very close. That said I think you miss the point about bulk printing with digital; most labs offer very competitive prices, and since digital is a very easy to transmit medium, sending it for printing is getting easier as labs like fotohub start to have online facilities to send your photos in for printing.
Heh, I did say it was a bit biased towards the D1X. However I've scanned a fair amount of film myself, and while it depends on the film used, the conditions shot, etc, there are times when digital reigns supreme. Maybe it's my scanner.. but I doubt a better scanner will improve things much.
Regarding lack of grain, I think you've just seen it. Alternatively I could show you shots scanned from a Frontier machine (which all in all was likely to have printed your photo you linked). The grains are visible compared to a shot from a digital SLR.
Film doesn't create images with a single molecule as the smallest element of an image; a look at film under a microscope will confirm it. Certainly the grain sizes are bigger than a molecule.
Finally, I'd like to address the comparison between prints from slides and prints from digital; there's a reason why machines like the Frontier are so popular (hint: speed and quality), and I think quite a fair amount of people can testify to that. In effect that also means your slide has been digitally scanned in first, which in effect makes the comparison quite similar. From prints printed in this way, I fail to see any difference in slide or digital. In fact digital looks better at times (again, high ISO at great enlargements). Again much of this depends on the photographer; a crap photog shooting digital isn't going to get much results.
Kiwi, I agree with your point about the prices if you're talking about digital SLRs, but for point and shoots I think they're very close. That said I think you miss the point about bulk printing with digital; most labs offer very competitive prices, and since digital is a very easy to transmit medium, sending it for printing is getting easier as labs like fotohub start to have online facilities to send your photos in for printing.
hmmm din read the whole thread, might be repeating..
but from my POV it's a workflow thingy... if film could do give a 10% feedback cycle or workflow thingy (loosely: time from scene to final image) versus digital dun think digital wd be established liao...
a lot of convenience vs marginal loss in quality
cost-wise I think for my kind of throughput it's pretty similar..
but from my POV it's a workflow thingy... if film could do give a 10% feedback cycle or workflow thingy (loosely: time from scene to final image) versus digital dun think digital wd be established liao...
a lot of convenience vs marginal loss in quality
cost-wise I think for my kind of throughput it's pretty similar..
- Status
