Digital Versus Film Photography - What do you think?

[tegan]

My first post, but I use both film and digital extensively.

Film handles colour better than digital, as in more colours, better saturation, and less contrast. Somewhat surprisingly Kodak Gold in Popular Photography tested out as the best print film with more resolution than all digital cameras. On the negative(pun) side, colour slide film does not often print out with a quality close to digital.

Digital cameras have the advantage of instant pre and_or post preview, a lot more in-camera control and considerable postprocessing options. Among the disadvantages are shutter lag, flare and noticeable lens defficiencies such as barrel distortion, the need for a tripod or steadier hand as well as the requirement for considerable skill in postprocessing.

You cannot really talk about which is better because they are quite a bit different. You cannot even talk about which is easier to use, because they require different skills.

Once I discover the size and space restrictions on individual photos on this site, I will post some.

Tegan

[Joshua Hakin]

Among the disadvantages are shutter lag, flare and noticeable lens defficiencies such as barrel distortion, the need for a tripod or steadier hand

??????????????????????????????
You are really gonna have to explain this one!


P.S.- shutter lag.... only on digi point-n-shoots

[tegan]

Shutter lag tends to be longer on the point and shoots, but it is also present on the EVFs or Super Zooms and much less noticeable but still present even on many DSLRs. As to flare, with film cameras a lens hood was suggested but often ignored with no problems for almost all shots. With digital I have seen lens flare on even professional work when the photographer did not have a hood on the end. As to barrel distortion, shooting with a film camera and a 28mm wide angle lens very seldom has led to distortion of the sides of buildings for example. Shooting with the same lens on a digital camera has produced some interesting leans on the buildings. Viewing architectural work of others shooting digital and wide angle has shown the same kind of distortion and greater than that with film.

Tegan

[Joshua Hakin]

With digital I have seen lens flare on even professional work when the photographer did not have a hood on the end. As to barrel distortion, shooting with a film camera and a 28mm wide angle lens very seldom has led to distortion of the sides of buildings for example. Shooting with the same lens on a digital camera has produced some interesting leans on the buildings.
Tegan

I still don't see how a lens optical quality could possibly barrel more on digital than film. If a 28mm produces barreling on a digital that same lens will barrel exactly the same amount on a film body. The optical structure of a lens does not alter when you put it on a digital body. Flare is the same thing... if a lens produces flare it will do so no matter whether there's a sensor behind or film.
And how is digital more susceptible to "non-steady hands" than film?

[Marko]

And how is digital more susceptible to "non-steady hands" than film?

With regard to this factor, I've heard this from several other people that have recently gone digital. If this were to be true for most digital cameras, what do you think would be causing it?

Thanks
Marko

[tegan]

With regard to this factor, I've heard this from several other people that have recently gone digital. If this were to be true for most digital cameras, what do you think would be causing it?

Thanks
Marko

The weight and balance of the digital and film cameras are different. Shutter vibration may be different as well. Shutter lag may also be a factor as well as how hard you need to press the button.

Tegan

[tegan]

Instant feedback, control, and flexible editing are the main reasons.

With film, high speed film is necessary for low lighting but low ISO film provides better quality for blow-ups. Contrast is higher on low ISO film than on higher. Low ISO film can make shadows too dark and contrasty and high ISO film can blow out highlights if not exposed perfectly. Film is not very editable, for taking out distracting items in the background or at the side of the frame, changing hue, or solving relatively minor visual problems.

The advantages to film are better colour...approximately 46 bit versus 8 bit and possibly sharper blow-ups with a tripod, the right camera, a great lens, perfect lighting, and the right film.

With digital, ISO speed is somewhat irrelevant in that you can change it from photo to photo and film characteristics are equally not an issue either. Although their may seem to be picture noise or grain at high ISOs with digital, unless it is extremely visible on screen, it does not end up in the print. Some experts looking a digital noise have pointed out that on screen noise up to a certain level often results in a sharper print than a camera that reduces the resolution or sharpness to make the on-screen noise disappear.

You can also by the way use pro tricks to enlarge digital prints and maintain a very good level of sharpness and resolution. (Post processing skills in digital are extremely important and make a big difference in quality prints.) Editing in photoshop can either increase picture noise, create banding and artifacts, reduce the number of colours and tones, and mess up gradual changes in colour, or it can result in minimal loss in picture quality. It just depends on how you do it and unfortunately there are a LOT of photographers out there who have not spent the time to learn about digital postprocessing.

Tegan

[barbiepurl]

Film handles color better than digital, as in more colors better saturation, and less contrast. Somewhat surprisingly Kodak Gold in Popular Photography tested out as the best print film with more resolution than all digital cameras. On the negative(pun) side, color slide film does not often print out with a quality close to digital.
-----------------------------
Barbie Purl
Influencer

[sharyrafitari]

Indeed, film and digital sensors are two different media. It is not surprising to get two different results. I was told by our pro-store that many fine art photographers have returned to film because of its quality. In particular b/w film. When I want to do a good b/w I do it on film for sure, and print it on Fiber Based paper.

http://SharyPhoto.ca

[aophoto]

I think that film gives a better quality then digital, specially if you are going to blow up your photos into a very large format at least at the moment, and digital is of course more convenient.
Well this is my opinion.