Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here

Can digital still not match film?

keithh Plus
14 25.4k 33 Wallis And Futuna
29 Apr 2013 10:11PM
Not irrelevant but very possibly surplus to requirements. Wink

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

joolsb 13 27.1k 38 Switzerland
29 Apr 2013 10:22PM

Quote:I don't play an MP3 and moan when it doesn't sound scratchy and keep jumping.

I do moan when I hear an MP3 and it sounds dull and dynamically constipated compared to vinyl on good equipment… Wink
MrDennis 9 261 Wales
1 May 2013 9:49PM
You don't have to Clean an mp3 of dust or scratches, so that makes life easier for 99% of people.

For someone who is Good or Very good in the Darkroom (Lab photo Technicians etc), Film will always beat a good digi.
This arguement will rage on for years...

90% of todays photographers use a DSLR or point and shoot or phone...85% of photographers & Judges can not tell the difference between a film print and a digi print done on a Pro machine. FACT! (unless you can feel the difference or smell some Dev).

A Medium Format camera costs too much for most photographers unless you make your cash from it. There are more iPhone camera users than any other camera user, so Digital rules. (that includes other top camera phones as well). Colleges still use Film because they believe in the basics of photography for learning. (Good for them). Once a Student has passed all their exams, majority will go over to digital.

Happy Photography All..
2 May 2013 12:07AM

Quote:You don't have to Clean an mp3 of dust or scratches, so that makes life easier for 99% of people.

Talking DSLR sensors? Wink
2 May 2013 12:38AM
Interesting thing - as soon as the next film vs digital discussion hits the net, the statistical arguments ( like 99.99 per cent people use digital) take hold. Popularity does not equal quality however. If 99.99 per cent of people cannot dance properly - does not make any professional dancer worse. As for quality itself - I already had my say. The only thing to add - roots of film decline do not lay in technical or aesthetic planes. It is still possible to take that image to the computer screen - and it will look distinct from purely digital. One of the reasons of it would be multi stage rendering/re-sampling of digital image till it finally gets exposed in it's analogue form - the only one that we can truly see.
Decline of film owes more to convenience and economics - which promotes immediate results with minimal expenditures. That has nothing to do with artistic side of photography however. And for the results produced by 99.99 per cent of everyday users there would be no loss in going digital over film, true.
Gaucho 16 2.8k 2 United Kingdom
2 May 2013 7:52AM
I rue the day glass plates went out of fashion. There was nothing like a good glass plate contact print. Far better than negatives Wink
keith selmes 14 7.3k 1 United Kingdom
2 May 2013 11:56AM

Quote:plates went out of fashion
What ? When ? nobody tells me nothing any more


(FP4 exposed as iso100, dev in ID-11 stock for 10 minutes, last week)
Carabosse 15 41.0k 269 England
2 May 2013 12:03PM
Nothing beats a good daguerreotype! Tongue
keith selmes 14 7.3k 1 United Kingdom
2 May 2013 12:25PM
That's probably true actually.
conrad 13 10.9k 116
2 May 2013 12:42PM
But, in the spirit of the original question, you may wonder if the daguerrotype couldn't be replicated digitally... Wink
Gaucho 16 2.8k 2 United Kingdom
2 May 2013 1:09PM
Keith, that San Miguel looks rather tasty Smile
2 May 2013 1:17PM
It does usually come down to personal preference and in some cases perhaps an elitist opinion, but some aspects of the film v digital arguement are usualy missed out:

The 'life' of the media (unused film won't last forever and only has an optimum working window)
Effective temperature range
Running costs (single use v re-usable)
In-camera manipulation (ISO settings etc)
Convenience (always have a card in the camera)
Etc, etc...

So the question could be flipped tonask if film could ever match digital. Don't get me wrong, I love shooting medium format film for work and hobby, but the vast majority of my work is shot digitally for the above reasons and more. The difference in image/print quality is so little it makes little or no difference for me
mikehit 8 8.0k 13 United Kingdom
2 May 2013 2:00PM
Or to put it another way - if they had invented digital photography first, can you imagine photographers going "Oh, yeah. Let's use this new fangled medium called film. Let's play with toxic chemicals and wait 5 days to see the results! Cool!"
monstersnowman 12 1.7k 1 England
2 May 2013 2:03PM
They WOULD be asking if 'film could ever match digital' with its multitude of benefits and conveniences IF digital had come out first. The whole argument would be flipped on its head and it is quite probable that the same people loving the feel and look of film would be loving the feel and look of traditional old digital compared with the inconvenient grainy look of new fangled film with its dusty, scratchy negatives etc .. That's of course just my opinion Smile
keith selmes 14 7.3k 1 United Kingdom
2 May 2013 2:24PM

Quote:Keith, that San Miguel looks rather tasty
mixed it myself Wink Nearly ran out of bottles though, I didn't know you had to make all 5 litres in one go

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.