Why I like Film

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

moribundman

Joined
Jun 2, 2003
Messages
23,587
I scanned an 8x8 inch photographic print of a full frame 6x6 B&W negative (Tri-X 400 ASA). Keep in mind, the scan quality is bad compared to the actual photographic print. Care to guess how many megapixels you'd need to get that detail with a digital camera? Not to mention you'd clip highlights and/or drown the shadow detail. The scan naturally lost also shadow detail and distorted the tonal range. Anyway, I thought some of you photogs might find this interesting.

a656ff56.jpg


Cropped in to see amount of detail in print:

f4818204.jpg


e2f2d605.jpg


4eca9fd2.jpg
 
That's why I like old movies of the 30's and 40's in BW, they had so much detail the BW makes them even more HD than color, all movies on film are HD, someone posted at the AVS forum that when they transfer these films to digital it actually is a downgrade in resolution.
 
Originally Posted By: Fester
That's why I like old movies of the 30's and 40's in BW, they had so much detail the BW makes them even more HD than color, all movies on film are HD, someone posted at the AVS forum that when they transfer these films to digital it actually is a downgrade in resolution.


Steven Spielberg says that with digital the picture doesn’t seem alive. He says you can sit in the front row of a digital film and see the digital artifacts and you can sit in the front row of a movie shot on film and see the chemicals in the film. The image on the screen could be a static shot of a man that never blinks, but when it’s film and it’s been through the chemical process the image is alive. You can see the chemical process after effects and even if nothing else is moving, the film has a life.

In the case of still shots, pixels give an image a very artificial feel, while film grain has an organic quality.
 
I prefer digital for its convenience (I still have an 8 year old roll in my film SLR that still has half of it available). But I agree that in the hands of a knowledgeable person the film can have much more soul than the digital.
 
Originally Posted By: NJC
Great depth of field.


It was a 65 mm lens focused at hyperfocal distance and stopped down to only F22.
 
With digital you're always fighting a non-techie for resolution and compression that's "okay enough".

Look at Dish network satellite; they have 10 video channels to a transponder and some jerk from marketing will want to squeeze an 11th in because it's "free" and he can claim "more".

Have an old Yashicamat 120 rollfilm TLR; the prints were great and people always thought I was photographing my shoes.
 
Somewhere around 15 - 20 megapixels ?

I have a pile of color 6x6 slides of drag racing cars I took back in the early 70's. Done with a Zeiss Ikon TLR and Ektachrome 64. I thought it might be nice to get a few scanned to make prints.

SHock ! They wanted $20 per slide to scan at maximum resolution and the file size was going to be in the vicinty of 300 MB per slide. That's how much info/data is in one of those 6x6 color slides. Needless to say, I didn't proceed. Scanning at lower resolutions for $5 or $10 per slide was also available.

The amount of detail and color in these 6x6 slides is almost beyond belief. And it's all perfectly preserved after 30+ years. No matter how uninterested in photography someone might be, anyone who looks at one of these through a simple table top viewer gets quiet for about 10 seconds and then usually says, "Wow ! What kind of camera took this picture ?".

You can't beat the convenience and low operating cost of digital. Unfortunately, digital still can't beat the final quality of medium/large format, low ISO film coupled with high quality glass (as far as I know - I'm not a real 'camera guy').
 
Originally Posted By: va3ux
They wanted $20 per slide to scan at maximum resolution and the file size was going to be in the vicinty of 300 MB per slide. That's how much info/data is in one of those 6x6 color slides. Needless to say, I didn't proceed. Scanning at lower resolutions for $5 or $10 per slide was also available.


A drum scan, which is the best method of scanning any negative or chrome film costs way more than $20. For 20 bucks you'll get a flatbed/CCD scan. Flatbed scans are unacceptable for professional quality, mostly due to unacceptable noise in the shadows areas. A drum scan starts at about $50.

A 35 mm color negative, properly scanned will be about 50 MB. The resolution will then about equal that of a 35mm negative or chrome, but the tonal range and color still do not compare.

By the way, mistyped. I took the picture above with a 6x7 format camera and not with a 6x6.
 
Mori,

Much of what you say is true however, you must compare apples to apples. For instance; the tonal range in some of my 6x7 transmissions blow similar images from my Leica M6 out of the water. The Leica images were taken at the same time with the same film, but they simply can't match the 6x7 surface area. So, if you want to compare your B&W prints to digital you must be fair, and compare them to a medium format digital back.

Quote:

Unfortunately, digital still can't beat the final quality of medium/large format, low ISO film coupled with high quality glass (as far as I know - I'm not a real 'camera guy').


Not true. Current digital technology is now giving us professionals noise free images, with extreme bit depth, stunning dynamic range and colour palettes that film has never been able to produce. I currently use Canon 5Ds and the 1Ds Mark ll, and frankly, many of the ad agencies I work with can't tell the difference between my files and ones created from scanned 645 transmissions... except the digital originals look better.


P.S. Nice print!
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Yuk
Current digital technology is now giving us professionals noise free images

I prefer the look of analog images over that of digital images. I like grain (not noise or noise-free). I don't care for the artificial plastic look of digital.

Quote:
with extreme bit depth, stunning dynamic range and colour palettes that film has never been able to produce.


You should compare apples to apples yourself there. The average consumer or amateur will not produce tweaked and optimized 48 bit images with optimum output. They get one-hour digital garbage prints and nothing remotely high-end.

I prefer having a negative or positive original over having a vast number of zeros and ones on a memory chip. It's a tactile thing, I guess. I enjoy processing film and printing the images. Each emulsion has "personality" that can be used to one's advantage. Again, the artificiality of digital is to me totally unattractive. Simulating, for example, the look of Kodachrome, how pathetic is that? Comparing Digital images to analog images is similar to a comparison between CD versus analog recording. I may lack the ear to hear the difference between them, but others can hear the difference. I can clearly see the differences between analog and digital pictures. It all doesn't matter to online images or to most printed matter. It does matter when it comes to fine art prints and my personal images. I don't want a photo album full of digital images.

Quote:
many of the ad agencies I work with can't tell the difference between my files and ones created from scanned 645 transmissions

I'm not surprised they can't tell. I know ADs who are unfamiliar with anything but digital. The quality of "professional" photography has taken a nosedive since the majority of pros began opting in favor of cheap and fast. I believe the medium has lost a lot since the late '90s.

Quote:
P.S. Nice print!

It's just a lousy flatbed scan (9 year old scanner) of a decent 8x10 print on fiber paper.
 
I was always told that film is still superior too.

As technology improves, will digital ever be on par with film?
 
Oddly enough, I hear this same line of reasoning in audio recording. Lots of really, really good audio engineers swear that there isn't anything better than an analog tape master. Generally they don't mind processing it in the digital domain afterwards, but they want the first recording to be analog and not digital.
 
Originally Posted By: buster
As technology improves, will digital ever be on par with film?


I can assure you that the number of properly exposed and sharply focused, poorly composed pictures will increase. If someone asks, "What camera did you use?" he really expresses his desire of taking more bad pictures more conveniently.

lol (I never say "lol," but this really deserved it)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom