|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Has Digital Reached Film in 35mm size Still Photography
|
|
|
|
|
Mark Ogden
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 943
From: Little Falls, N.J.
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 08-31-2012 09:17 AM
I own the camera you are talking about, the Nikon D800. It loses nothing compared to 35mm, even taking Bayer interpolation into consideration. If you want to get microscopic, import a photo into an imaging program and do a 100% blow-up, you will still see some edginess, but this means nothing in any practical sense, and a 35mm film frame would also fail that level of inspection. The real issue with the camera is lenses; you’ve got to have some pretty sweet glass in order to bring out the capabilities of the imager, and even then focus is unforgiving. As you probably know there is another version of the camera available, the D800E, which removes the hi-cut filter from the front of the imager resulting in even sharper results when used with a good lens at a reasonable aperture (but raising the possibility of aliasing and cross-color effects if not used carefully).
I know of one internationally renowned landscape photographer who dumped her 55 megapixel Hasselblad in favor of the 800E and this is a person who makes and sells enlargements of considerable size. If it’s good enough for someone who makes a living thru large, highly detailed photographs . . .
At the same time, with the average CCD/CMOS photosite running about one-half the size of a film-grain particle, you don’t really need that dense an imager to meet 35mm. Go to any major photo convention, Photokina or PDN PhotoPro, and at the Nikon and Canon and Leica booths you will see massive lightboxes with shots from 12 or 13 megapixel APS-C sized sensors that are stunning.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Randy Stankey
Film God
Posts: 6539
From: Erie, Pennsylvania
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 09-03-2012 09:09 AM
The main question is what you want to do with your photos.
A digital photo printed on an inkjet is going to be different than a traditional photo printed from an enlarger. Resolution has little to do with it.
You're either going to take an image recorded electronically, in the Cartesian coordinate system, and print it to a device that also works in Cartesian fashion or you're going to take an image recorded as randomly placed grains of silver or rosettes of color and print to another random grained medium. The quantization involved in moving from one to the other is always going to affect the result. Sometimes it's noticeable. Sometimes it's not. You're going to need to put for some effort to make sure that what you see is what you get.
Is digital better than traditional? If the same person puts forth comparable effort to produce an image in either system I can't believe one is better than the other in terms of the quality of the final product.
It's not the camera. It's the idiot behind the camera.
One big problem in photography that has existed for a long time; probably since the beginning; is that people get hung up on the equipment instead of the image. Too many people have to have the latest and greatest gear and they have to spend oodles of money to get it. They don't consider the product. They only consider the camera.
I have several thousand dollars worth of traditional photo equipment. It all works the way it was designed. It can produce photographs beyond my abilities. In the hands of a more learned and skilled person, it can produce even better results.
Why in the world should I dump all of this perfectly good equipment for digital?
The camera costs $3,000 or more, sans lenses. I'm going to need a computer and a good printer. That's going to cost a couple-few thousand more. (Maybe you already have the computer but you still had to spend money to get it in the first place. Righ?)
I bought a Pentax ME-Super at a garage sale for $20.
I buy film in 100 foot spools of bulk 35mm film for $40 to $50.
The loader and empty cartridges cost under $50.
Film processing tanks, chemistry and utensils will cost you around $100 to $200, depending on what you buy.
Look around on eBay or Craig's List or just keep your ear to the ground and you will be able to buy an entire darkroom's worth of equipment for pennies on the dollar. I bought mine for $250. Soup to nuts.
For $1,000 or less, I bought everything I need to produce photographs. You can't even buy the bare digicam for that.
If you work entirely in the traditional medium, I don't think you'll find any digital photograph can compete with the output you produce from a darkroom.
For the extra $2,000 I can buy a whole lot of film, paper and chemistry. More than a year's worth. Maybe two or three if you are frugal. In that period of time, you're probably going to end up buying a new digicam and spending money all over again.
We haven't even considered medium and large format cameras. I could get out my Rolleiflex or my 4x5 view camera and we'd be working on a whole different level than 35mm.
Digital is great in terms of immediacy and ease of delivery through electronic means but, as far as I am concerned, that's about it.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"
Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 09-03-2012 05:57 PM
I don't have much need to enlarge or print the photos I take, so I transitioned 100% to digital at just 1.3MP somewhere around 1999-2001 -- I was more than willing to sacrifice resolution in favor of convenience. I consider myself "typical" in this regard.
I wanted to know that I had a usable image, and I wanted immediate access to it -- and I didn't want to pay for a whole bunch of prints just to get the one or two that were worth keeping -- I also like storing them digitally versus keeping photo albums or shoe boxes.
I find that I am taking more photos than I used to with film. And I'm doing more with the photos I take. Which brings me to...
The reality of what we're doing with these images -- Just about everyone I know looks at photos electronically, and not on paper -- most photos are disseminated via email, Facebook, etc -- and hi-rez is not needed -- most of the photos I share are re-sized (down-rezzed) for easy transmission and manageability.
I'd frankly be a little annoyed if people were "sharing" super hi rez images all the time. So far, I have never been so moved as to request a full-rez version of an image someone has shared with me. And, likewise, I don't recall anyone asking for one from me.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Ogden
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 943
From: Little Falls, N.J.
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 09-03-2012 07:28 PM
One of the astonishing things that has occurred over the many years that the film v. digital argument has raged has been watching film folks jumping thru smaller and smaller hoops in order to try and convince themselves and others that film is still superior. For example:
quote: Randy Stankey
are you talking about Adox CMS 20 developed in Adotech then scanned on a drum scaner?
I had never even heard of this stuff until I read your post. It turns out that it is an obscure, German-made ASA20 pan film that is so specialized that it requires its own chemistry to develop. Then you want it drum-scanned, for heavens sake. Now, I’ve never shot this film, but for the sake of the discussion I concede that it will very likely have greater resolution than the image from a DSLR.
So, what is the takeaway here? Does this absolutely, positively prove that 35mm is superior to digital? Well, I guess this particular film might be. Y'know, I still have my old Olympus OM gear. If I can find anyone in America that sells it, and then find anyone who can develop it, I may give it a shot. ![[uhoh]](graemlins/uhoh.gif)
When the argument turns to the kind of technical minutiae that is occurring here, then nothing of any true real-world value is being discussed. The answer to your question about whether there is a 32-bit digital camera available is: not to my knowledge. Fortunately, for the thousands of professional photographers around the world, it doesn’t seem to be much of an issue. Dynamic range? The D800 looks to be around 14 EV or so, more than enough. If I need more, I’ll image blend. Tone curve? I shoot NEF files, the tone curve can be whatever I want it to be. Line pairs per millimeter? I have a Nikkor 85mm, a beautiful, tack sharp lens. How many line pairs per millimeter does it give me? I have no clue, and luckily for me, the subject doesn’t come up much in conversation. Really, does it matter? It has enough to make a stunning 50-inch print that will more than hold its own against one from a 35mm frame of, oh I dunno, Fuji Velvia 50. That’s how many it has.
I wonder if anyone asks Bob Krist or Peter Lik if they are bothered that they can’t get 32 bit images out of their DSLRs, or how many lp/mm they are getting.
I stand by my statement that full-frame digital loses nothing against 35mm. If you have to slice things that thin, really get down to small variations in specification, then you are not talking about anything that has any real practical meaning.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Randy Stankey
Film God
Posts: 6539
From: Erie, Pennsylvania
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 09-03-2012 10:00 PM
I've used the Adox film. It's good as advertised but it is finicky. The point in mentioning it is to illustrate extremes and to point out a range of choices which aren't available in digital.
Mark, you can develop your own film. It ain't that hard. You don't really need a darkroom. You can do it in your bathroom sink. Film and chemistry isn't that expensive. You can get the tank, reels, thermometer and measuring beakers for under $100. The chemistry costs under $50. You don't need fancy glass bottles. You can use empty plastic milk jugs if they have screw tops. With some practice and a bit of finesse, you can soup a roll of black and white film in under an hour. E-6 might take a bit longer, depending on the kit you use.
I probably spend about as much time in front of the computer screen downloading and editing digi-pics as I do in the darkroom. Time is a wash, as far as I am concerned.
quote: Mark Ogden
I wonder if anyone asks Bob Krist or Peter Lik if they are bothered that they can’t get 32 bit images out of their DSLRs
As I said, it's not the camera. It's the idiot behind the camera that counts.
(The word "idiot" being used in the rhetorical sense. ![[Wink]](wink.gif) )
Yes, I do notice range and I do notice aberration. It drives me crazy. (Okay, maybe that's only a short walk... ) I try really hard to make it right and, to be honest, I think I stink at it.
Regardless of how good I really am or how good or bad I think I am, these kinds of things aren't minutia to me. It's what you do to make photographs, regardless of the medium.
I really don't see resolution as a big difference, good or bad. I can push film and make grain like golf balls or I can baby it and make grain that you'll have to squint to see even with a focusing scope. (Try some Ilford Pan-F Plus 50 ASA and pull it back to 25. Tasty! ![[Cool]](cool.gif) ) Sometimes, I like grain. It depends on what I want the image to look like.
As extreme as my first example was, being able to choose a film and process it the way you like to get the result you want is important to me. I've done both of these things, I know what happens when you do them and I can use that knowledge to get what I want. It's like choosing a golf club based on the shot you want to make. Sometimes you want to use a driver or a fairway wood. Other times I need a putter.
I don't see this as minutia. If you like to work on cars, you'll argue the benefits of one tire over another. We always argue the benefits of one practice or another in the projection booth, here, at Film-Tech. These things are part and parcel to what we do.
Oh, Manny, about the need to review your photos on the LCD screen so you'll know whether you made the shot:
I was out on Presque Isle one evening and I happened to meed up with one of the well known pros in town. We hung out and shot together but mostly shot the shit.
He turned around to shoot a photo of a couple of kids, backlit by the orange sunset. Click! He went on to the next shot and I said, "Aren't you going to bracket that one?"
He said, "Fuck no! I'm a professional!"
Point being, regardless of the medium, regardless of the equipment, you need to know what you want your shot to be even before you look through the camera. Otherwise, you're just poking and hoping.
If you're shooting action shots, sports or impromptu events you're likely to have only one shot at it. An LCD screen isn't going to help you much. If you're shooting portraits, posed shots or landscapes, you're going to bracket. If you need more than two or three shots to get it right, you might as well forget it.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"
Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 09-03-2012 10:25 PM
Dear film huggers,
Just admit that you're experiencing some anxiety about having something taken away that you are emotionally attached to. That's more honorable, I think.
Love,
Manny.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Scott -- Every time someone brings up the archival angle, I consistently agree with that point, and this is no exception -- but that's got nothing to do with the slight technical advantage that film (currently) has over digital -- it's due to its proven track record as a storage medium -- it's a backup -- if we want the original and the digital image is still available -- the DIGITAL image is the one I'd favor -- but if the file is corrupted or whatever, then we go to the film "as a LAST resort" -- and we'll re-digitize that sucker. From a practical standpoint, THAT is all film has going for it, IMO.
Sign of the times -- early 2000's "what oil do you use" was the hot button topic. Now it's "film vs digital."
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic