Film vs Digital?

Question

Here's how it is:

Light enters the lens and hits the sensor/film.

The film/sensor records the image. BOTH film and digital record each image as three channels/layers.

Film records each level of the zone system in a smooth gradation. Digital records each colour layer in 65000 levels. So you could argue that there is more information recorded in the film. Well yes but get real. Who the hell could ever tell the difference of 1/65,000th of a level?

Now, it's argued by film users that digital can't reproduce the true essence of film. Why? Why do you say that? Because you see the ameteur images from compact digis? We have all the information on a digital RAW that a film records. So why do you think digi doesn't reproduce the image correctly? It's funny to think that digital actually reproduces what it sees unlike film which accents some colours more than others according to which film you choose to use.

Answer 1

This is a hard question to answer as there are some errors in basic assumptions. that are presented.



Lets work backwards.

Starting with Black and white.

It is argued by many Film users that Digi can't reproduce what Black and white Film can achieve. This is a false as Digital can now exceed the capabilities of any film including Black and white. BUT and this is a very big BUT ( No Pun intended). It will take more than just cursory tweaks in photoshop.

Here is a link to a picture I shot in Venice. The post work took over three days.

http://www.michaellohrphotography.com/frames/sub_index_pages/index_land.htm



This picture simply could not have been done with conventional Black and white film under the same conditions I shot that day.

Now some could say that with this much post production doesn't this prove that film is better? The answer is no. Most great Black and white required extensive Dark room work to get the final print. So that said if one does not want to do alot of post production work then one should stay with conventional film as the tonality is at the onset better.



So I started with the Black ands white to show that the same underlying principles remain while comparing film to digital.

You correctly pointed out that many different films and their own accents or color. This is precisely why I feel sorry for those that have not shot film. If one understands what film can do one can make those adjustments in post to mimic the feel or look of a film. Not only that one is limited by processing so one can actually push the limits further than what the original film did. But again. This takes work.



For those that do not care about the nuances then digital is great. For those that want better pictures without much work then film is still a good choice. For those that want great pictures and have the time to put in then Digital has advantages that film can not compete with.

As far as what digital can see there is no comparison any more to the very expensive cameras. There simply isn't any noise that is viewable in the large format digital cameras.



The only time I shoot film anymore is when I want to shoot on a camera that gives a specific look that a conventional camera can't replicate.

Answer 2

For film production is important to have the right color resolution and it can only be obtained by film. Digital is much cheaper but involves up to four times the processing to reproduce the same level of color as Film does in one pass. Digital only has a certain amount of resolution and it makes up the rest of the colors of the image by using advance logarithm programed in the chip. Is possible to have a digital chip that can take the same information as a Film image does and is not to say is not out there already but the problem is rendering of the image will take a very large portion of a production. I believe Kodak developed one years back but it was never brought to consumers because it would be too expensive. Yes you are right as to us not been able to see the detail but you are talking about small scale, look at it in the large scale on the lattes Lucas Star wars movie and you can tell the difference. Had the movie been done entirely on film the resolution would be much clearer and catch the audience much deeper, but the cost would of been astronomical.

Answer 3

its not our lack of knowledge its yours, goto some exibitions - start looking at prints, study the masters, goto photography school.....the list goes on and on



a



Edit: its something cant be explained on one level, you deserve a better answer?



first theres the science part, film has far more grain than digis have pixels.......bigger film or smaller iso and the gap increases.........film isnt limited to 10mp or whatever, the only limts are how much grain one wishes to reproduce and the quality of the scanner used to dizitize the film image



in print they are analog no matter what the source



on screens they are digital no matter what the source



the source is the artist choise, most fine art fotogs choose film because they dont want niose and want even tonal range that analog gives - eg zoom into any digi image and the pixels arent consistant - on film they are more consisitant



digi has noise, film hasnt



ok the second part is the art side of it



film has grain, digi has pixels, grain can be used artistically, niose cant, fine art fotogs choose film to get the best source, so if they want a saturated colour they use a film that will deliver it, if they dont they dont. the art side i cant explain - goto some exibits and really look at the large prints of bw from bw film - if your ready you will see it, if your not you wont



for most applications digi is great or the best, we arent talking video tape vs DVD - cause both are digital now anyway - its not the records vs cd thing either, viual art is a differnt medium from music, if they were the same every image would have to be shot at F64 and not have any exclusion (exclusion is what people here call the blurry effect)...........................people ask me how do you get this or that (reproprosity failure or other things) and i say thats cause i use film at 8 seconds or whatever..........so its a visual art form - art pencils better than paint brushes, are water paints better than oils.........it dont matter its whatever the artist chooses........there are artistic qualities film has like reproprosity failure that photoshop cant do, and then theres grain again,,,,,,,,,





so the art side cant be film vs digital its artist interpretation of a creative choise the artist makes - digi or film



the science part i truely dont know enough to answer more, for most of what i do if this makes you happy digital wins,



for fine art film with its imperfections and qualities turns me on more, but there are great shots on both



how many film nuts say digi is no good? we say each has its purpose, i prefer film for pleasure and art, for work and snapshots and convienince i prefer digi..............film excites me, digi serves a purpose - and alot better than film does





so to answer your question digi 95 vs film 5, digi the winner,



EDIT: 2 wise below me has covered it best for me and butterfly -- i say film is best for some things and digi for others, to say film is dead is like saying paintings are dead.......



starwars and "films" like that are shot on 70mm film and they do have a cool look, if you want razor sharp to the nearest pixel ok digi then - they are different, for somethings film is better for the rest digi is better, like a photo vs a paiting, its in the eye ---- if you only see in digi its not us its you,



when i watch tv i can see whats from film or digi - look at the old star trek and the new ones - its taste in a way, i like the look of film you might not?? this is art we film guys talk about (funny i shot 95%digi - am i a film or digi guy?)..........art is personal taste, if you like over processed stuff made to "look" like film fine, i like whats appropriate one orthe other



one thing you will find is those know nothing think film is the past, its art, just like photography didnt replace painting



a

Answer 4

I bought my daughter her camera's because she loves photography, and is excellent at it.. both canon.. 35mm then the EOS digital.. the pictures are amazing.. even blown up.. the digital captures the essence of the picture.. and can be more flexible in it's shooting captures.. sometimes.. it's the camera.. sometimes it's the photographer.. it takes a creative and intelligent pair to grasp an creative imagine at it's finest..

Answer 5

this conversation (film vs digital) is like two artists having an argument about which is the better brush. did da vinci have these problems i wonder

Answer 6

Color aliasing and IR noise in digital.



70mm Kodak Film can be zoomed to billboard size.