Join Now
Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
For a long time i'm trying to get a proper answer, but no one could give me. I waned to ask the Forum's members: what do you think is better - film or digi in terms of quality. It's clear to me that digi is cheaper, more comfortable etc, but looking at digi photos, even photos of dSLR's, i get the feeling that the colors of the film are much vivid and deeper. I was told by someone that it has to do with the colors captured by the sensor (only 3 in digi). Can you provide a serious answer?
Thanks a lot, Jonathan.
I hope you are not making any judgements on the basis of the highly compressed, (often) Photoshopped pics you see in the EPZ gallery!!
For everyone who holds the opinion you do, Jonathan you will find someone who thinks the diametrical opposite, i.e. that digi captures colours better.
I think the answer is that digital capture can potenitally capture more colour information but how that information is then handled is down to the 'operator'.
Having seen (and produced) some very lacklustre film images I know that it is wrong to say make the generalisation that film colours are more vivid and deeper.
It depends entirely upon the accuracy of metering, if you deliberately (or unintentionally) under-expose slightly and the film stock being used.
The same applies to digital capture. I and all other digital workers, can produce images as richly saturated as you like!
Barrie 
I'm not sure why the film v digital question keeps popping up. Perhaps neither is better than the other. I think its more a case of which system works best for you and your requirements, to be honest.
For me personally, digital is great because I don't always get the perfect shot (despite trying very hard) and being able to view the images and make any necessary adjustments before paying out for the printing is an enormous money-saver. I used both film and digital at a friends party last year and took identical shots to make a comparison and couldn't see a visible difference in the images - unless my eyesight is worse than I though!
Use whatever suits you, basically.
I take landscapes but have got a digital camera. I loved my film camera and I still think that for larger prints, film is better than digital. However, I really do love using digital. Its so instant and you can see results straight away. I do think that digital shots need more tweaking but I enjoy that too.
Quality? Big field to play in there... which event shall we start with?
SNR - Crucial one and hard to translate into an analogue analogy. A good DSLR will put in an equal low light/long exposure performance though.
Colour fidelity - Well digitals vary and (more expensive ones) can be mapped to the (RGB) gamut of your choice. Digital certainly has a better lattitude but it is slide films limited lattitude that gives it so much impact. As digitals output can be compressed in terms of dynamic range afterwards I would say that out of the can slide looks best but digital can easily match it with a bit of post processing. Also the white balance of film is locked. With digital RAW files it is completely at your disposal. With a bit of time digital should give you either more accurate colour matching OR equally dramatic punch. Digitals use Red Green and Blue sensors. The most colour photosite types a film will have is 4 and most are 3 also.
Resolution - Over 7MP digital beats 35mm (providing the SNR is low). In colour at least. B&W film like PAN50 will out resolve any lens you care to put in front of it. With ease!
Grain - Digital has no grain so wins hre hands down (it can have noise though, but on modern DSLRs it's imperceptible at low ISO's).
These days 35m is easily outclassed by good DSLR's. MF is matched by top DSLR's and will be utterly outclassed by early next year.
IMO Digital is the new King. But a 35mm SLR can be had new for less than 100!
Lee.
i am also thinking which way to go for a new slr but value for money must come into it somewhere eg you can get an eos 3 body for the price of the 300d and wide angle lenses are more expensive for digital slrs if you have the digital darkroom set up eg pc/flatbed/film scanner decent printer then i would go for a midrange film slr a couple of lenses and a good flashgun or would i. i am waiting to see if the f80 is updated this year i have tried digital and like it very much[coolpix990/sonycybershot p10] sure i would like a 2od or minolta7 but shelf life of dslrs is not very long
Digital SLRs and digital technology as a whole is still evolving whereas there are very very few innovations on the film based camera front.
However, we are already at the stage with digital SLRs that the technology is such that even with the 'cheapest' SLR models, results are comparable with that produced by film based cameras.
The limiting factor in all cases is the ability (or lack of it) of the photographer.
With this in mind - the shelf life of a dSLR is as long as you want it to be. The most common reason for anyone changing a camera is the desire to have the 'latest' offering; need doesn't often come into the equation in my opinion
Barrie
I'm presently digitising many of my transparencies and even Hasselblad-originated results are often not up to dSLR quality.
Another aspect is digital is beautifully clean: no dust, scratches or other blemishes.
Ed B
[Someone is now sure to say "what about dust on the sensor?"].
I have converted to digital totally and do not even own a film camera now.
The point about landscapes is interesting. There are certainly those (like Ken Rockwell) who believe that digital cameras are unsuitable for landscape.
I think he's wrong, but I have seen many digital pics of landscapes where mass vegetation doesn't look quite right. Not because of the colours but - I have concluded - because of the sharpening. Sharpening halos in the parts of the pic which contain hedges, bushes and sometimes grass too can make the pic look look unnatural.
I think sharpening has to be done with extra care in digital landscape photos.
It is expensive, you can only photograph 36 frames at most in one go, you can't review and make adjustments but as long as film is made I shall continue to use it.
I have digital cameras too and intend to buy a 20D in due course but the satisfaction of a box of slides dropping through the letterbox is still something I want in my life.
I was told by someone that it has to do with the colours captured by the sensor (only 3 in digi)
No different in principle with film - one emulsion layer for each of three colours. Which are 'mixed' to produce the colour seen when viewing print / transparency.
I use both - Digital and film. I am looking at a project of mine at the moment which contains prints from both. I cannot tell which is which, either prints from the digital camera, the prints from the film camera, or the prints from the scans of the prints from the film camera.
Use what ever you can afford immediately, and whatever suits you best.
jas
Add a Comment
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.
Login or Join Now
New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!
Related Content
Join Our Free Newsletter
Awards
Current Competitions
foliopic 'Movement' Competition
1st May 2012 - 31st May 2012
This month's competition theme is 'Movement' which can be interpreted in a number of ways. You could photograph an animal running, a person walking or a car speeding...
Featured Directory Listing
May's Photo Month
Check out ePHOTOzine's inspirational photo month calendar! Each day click on a window to unveil new photography tips, treats and techniques.
Interact
Photography Gallery Photography Forums Recent Forum Activity Members' Meetings Members' BlogsSearch ePHOTOzine
Having trouble or would like to make a suggestion? Create a report
Calibrate your monitor so you can see 16 different shades.
ePHOTOzine © 2001 - 2012 Magezine Publishing | Contact Us | Site Map | Top