We've come a long way?

Choose all that you feel apply.


Results are only viewable after voting.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jed

Senior Member
Jan 19, 2002
3,911
0
0
UK
Visit site
#1
Okay, it's getting quiet in the forum, my ppd (posts per day) is dropping like a stone, so it's time for a new poll.

And I'm really interested in finding out about the views in this forum, so everybody vote!

The question this time is, how do you think the image quality of (sub $10 000) digital cameras today matches up to 35mm film? Choose all that you feel apply.

I think it would be very interesting to find out what the general consensus is on this issue. Since it's anonymous, I would encourage everyone to be honest about their opinions, and also not to engage in flames of any kind!

Let's try to consider the two on an equal footing, in other words, don't compare the crappiest digital camera with Velvia, or the best digital camera with the crappiest film. Try to tread the middle ground, and HAVE FUN!
 

Bluestrike

Moderator
Staff member
Jan 17, 2002
4,784
0
0
41
There lor~
bluestrike.clubsnap.org
#2
The way of the film is long and hard.... for those choosing to walk it.

But it thru these hardship that we learn.... and advance.......

Wow when I become so inky!
 

Jed

Senior Member
Jan 19, 2002
3,911
0
0
UK
Visit site
#3
:bsmilie: :bsmilie: :bsmilie:
Mebbe you always had it in you!
 

Jed

Senior Member
Jan 19, 2002
3,911
0
0
UK
Visit site
#6
Forget the X3 since no one knows enough about its real world performance to make an educated judgement. :cool:
 

StreetShooter

Senior Member
Jan 17, 2002
4,634
0
0
Katong
streetshooter.clubsnap.org
#8
OK We're talking about image quality only here, not about convenience or cost.

I find my digital pictures have a luminous quality that is lacking in film prints. It could be that's because I view my digital images on a monitor, whereas film prints depend on reflected light, and therefore lose a lot of dynamic range (especially when scanned). No experience scanning from negatives, so can't comment on that. Maybe someone can enlighten me, or provide a visual comparison.

I remember one review somewhere on the net stating that the output from D30 is equal in image quality to film, if not better.

Perhaps someone could find that link and highlight it.
 

Richard

Senior Member
Jan 16, 2002
522
0
16
#9
Originally posted by Jed
Okay, it's getting quiet in the forum, my ppd (posts per day) is dropping like a stone, so it's time for a new poll.

And I'm really interested in finding out about the views in this forum, so everybody vote!

The question this time is, how do you think the image quality of (sub $10 000) digital cameras today matches up to 35mm film? Choose all that you feel apply.

I think it would be very interesting to find out what the general consensus is on this issue. Since it's anonymous, I would encourage everyone to be honest about their opinions, and also not to engage in flames of any kind!

Let's try to consider the two on an equal footing, in other words, don't compare the crappiest digital camera with Velvia, or the best digital camera with the crappiest film. Try to tread the middle ground, and HAVE FUN!
On what sort of medium are you comparing it to? The monitor? Prints? The positives/negatives itself? Obviously, if I were to view the pictures a normal film camera takes direct from slides and the output a D30 comes out with on a monitor, it's not gonna be a very fair comparison...
 

Jed

Senior Member
Jan 19, 2002
3,911
0
0
UK
Visit site
#10
Originally posted by Richard


On what sort of medium are you comparing it to? The monitor? Prints? The positives/negatives itself? Obviously, if I were to view the pictures a normal film camera takes direct from slides and the output a D30 comes out with on a monitor, it's not gonna be a very fair comparison...
As I said, try to tread the middle ground. Maybe contemplate print and print when making your choice, or monitor and monitor. I'm asking everyone to consider the quality potential of each, and I don't mean the potential 10 years down the line, but the inherent quality a digital file or neg or tranny will possess in comparison. Viewing size should not come into it.
 

denizenx

Senior Member
Feb 1, 2002
4,058
0
0
41
L2TPYSG
Visit site
#11
definitely talking about viewing off a monitor...
if u try viewing ur photos in a whiteroom [ie studio] ur film prints will look great, assuming u've enlarged them too...
of cos if u've scanned ur film then yeah usually scans look slightly deader... probably due to the scanner.
 

anonymous

New Member
Feb 15, 2002
99
0
0
Silicon Valley
Visit site
#12
Originally posted by Jed


I think it would be very interesting to find out what the general consensus is on this issue. Since it's anonymous, I would encourage everyone to be honest about their opinions, and also not to engage in flames of any kind!

yes yes?? looking for me eh? wassup?
 

erwinx

Senior Member
Jan 18, 2002
2,423
0
0
Visit site
#14
To people who say that film doesn't scan well, i refer them to my modest example at: http://members.tripod.com/~tsc/travel/803.htm

This was a negative PJ100 scanned using a HP photosmart scanner and so its a 'worst case scenario'.
If I retook this in Provia and used my Coolscan, it'll leap in quality 1 more level :)

Also, A4 sized inkjet prints look great from scans. What more is there to say? I prefer to have hardcopy of prints. This way, can decorate your office walls, show to visitors, and inspire me to take more (and better, hopefully) photographs.



Originally posted by StreetShooter
OK We're talking about image quality only here, not about convenience or cost.

I find my digital pictures have a luminous quality that is lacking in film prints. It could be that's because I view my digital images on a monitor, whereas film prints depend on reflected light, and therefore lose a lot of dynamic range (especially when scanned). No experience scanning from negatives, so can't comment on that. Maybe someone can enlighten me, or provide a visual comparison.

I remember one review somewhere on the net stating that the output from D30 is equal in image quality to film, if not better.

Perhaps someone could find that link and highlight it.
 

Red Dawn

Senior Member
Jan 17, 2002
2,464
1
38
Singapore
www.5stonesphoto.com
#15
Originally posted by erwinx
Also, A4 sized inkjet prints look great from scans. What more is there to say?
Hi, talking about inkjet prints? Those same A4 sized inkjet printouts will look even better if there were shot digital in the first place, with a digital SLR. With the finest grain Provia compared to a D30 as an example, with the D30, you will get grain free and extremely clean images at the same equivalent ISO. After looking at a D30 printout, and then looking at the Provia output, you will immediately notice the difference. It's that dramatic.

Note that i'm not talking about sharpness or contrast here - i'm talking about color reproduction and the "clean" factor. You don't need a loupe to gauge color and the overall "look".

it's something you got to see for yourself - don't just take my word for it. it's true u can scan slides with much more megapixels and megabytes, but how many of those are actual detail, and not extra grain?

at the risk of getting flamed (not that i'm worried - it makes for entertaining posts: didn't someone say the forum is a bit dead?), i would even venture as far as to say, my D30 gives Medium Format a hard run for its money. A VERY hard run.

I shot a large group (20 or so) with my D30, on tripod, ISO 100 using studio strobes (a pair of studio lights with umbrellas), and ckiang setup the same shot with a Hassy. (department property!)
We took several different shots, small groups, large groups, and another colleague shot the same shots with a Yashica T5.

All shots were sent to the same lab using Fuji Frontier machine for prints (A4).

The Yashica T5 with its Carl Zeiss lens did pretty well, but the D30 prints blow it away. At A4 size, the D30 print and the medium format prints are very very close, in contrast, color and sharpness. There is however one difference. The D30 prints are cleaner, with not the slightest hint of grain.

I have no doubt the Hassy will start to show its true strength when we start enlarging the prints to say, 20" x 30" or even bigger. Afterall, that's wat medium format cameras are for right, large enlargements. However, looking at the prints, i'm confident the D30 will be able to hold its own up to at least 10" x 15", maybe even 16" x 20". There are pple in online forums who claim this is possible and they have done it, but of course i have to see it for MYSELF to believe that!

okay, there are lens differences, film differences, machine operator errors etc, so this is not a scientific test. Not by a long shot. No the D30 wouldn't kill of medium format - but it gets very close. it's not better than medium format quality, but close enough to warrant a serious look for film lovers (IF they can get off their pre-conceived prejudices ;))

gosh...i'm trying very hard not to post any responses in this thread, and look wat i have done. okay, this forum is still alive and let the flames roll in :rbounce:
 

Red Dawn

Senior Member
Jan 17, 2002
2,464
1
38
Singapore
www.5stonesphoto.com
#16
Hi

i wonder who are the 9 pple that voted "At high ISO, film is better than digital". i wish i could show them my ISO 800 wedding portrait of a bride, at A3 size :)
 

Jed

Senior Member
Jan 19, 2002
3,911
0
0
UK
Visit site
#17
:rbounce: :rbounce: :rbounce:

Hot enough for you?

Seriously, I was planning to sort of assess the results in an objective way, but now you've gone and done that...

My own £0.02 with regards to my own poll is as follows:
Digital is better than film at equivalent ISO.
We've got some way to go yet before ISO 1600 digital matches ISO 50 film, but it won't be long at the rate we're going.

This comes from someone who's been through 50000 D1 frames, 20000 D1x frames, and a 35mm, MF and LF film user for the last 2 years or so. My F5 is happily retired although I won't sell it just yet (combination of sentimental reasons and because I harbor the idea that I might possibly one day really need a true 14mm lens...). In those two years I've spent S$3000 on inkjet expendables and regularly produce prints to the equivalent of 16" x 24" after taking cropping into account. My work has been made into wall prints and press backgrounds, mainly from D1 files.

Digital is here to stay folks. I was sure the D1 was the equal of 35mm film up to A4. I now have no doubts the D1x is as good as 35mm if not better, to any size.

I know these are very expensive pieces of equipment (although the D1 can now be had for less than an F5), but if you leave cost out of it and examine only quality, I think digital is here and now. If you compare P&S film and digital cameras, then you get about the same result. The frustratingly small maximum apertures with P&S film cameras means you need much faster film speed to work in the same lighting conditions...

(The 9 people that voted that film is better than digital at high ISO are probably not so lucky as yourself Red Dawn... consumer digicams do struggle at the higher ISO ratings. Among the profession, those with digital cameras do prefer it almost as a whole compared to film.) But as above, film P&S cameras need a higher ISO because of ridiculously high maximum apertures.
 

erwinx

Senior Member
Jan 18, 2002
2,423
0
0
Visit site
#19
I would particularly like to see landscapes by digicams particularly those with horizon/sky/clouds, whereby oversharpening effects can be easily seen in the sky :)

Digicams still seem overcontrasty to me (perhaps because of all that sharpening) so I would like to see how they deal with monochromatic and/or low contrast subjects.

well, it would be interesting to compare prints from digicams vs prints from scans. maybe at some future gathering in march/april, i could bring inkjet prints from scans and someone could bring prints from digicams.

Eventually digicams will get there, and eventually i will probably buy one, if only for the 1.5x multiplier ;)

p.s. also for real comparisons, maybe i should have access to an ls-4000 if not a drum scanner.... but all i have is an ls-40
 

kelvinty

New Member
Feb 13, 2002
225
0
0
37
#20
Dear folks,

Okay okay, just got here from an unhappy thread. To me, simply put, digital and film are like chicken eggs and salted eggs.

Chicken eggs can go with rice and porridge.

Salted eggs can go with rice and porridge.

But! When I eat porridge I prefer salted eggs more because porridge is more bland.

However when I eat rice salted egg is simply too salty.

Hmm... geddit?

Digital thrash film lalalala, film thrash digital lalalala. This war won't end in the foreseeable future.

The _ONLY_ reason why I go to digital... is because of costs. Given a chance any day I'll take film, but then again it's because film technology is VERY matured, whereas digital technology is just starting to learn how to run. Maybe post this question in say (est. retail price) 5 years time, then perhaps we might have something to argue for.

Just my $0.02 (i think i have to add this to my signature!)

Yours,
Kelvin
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom