Film vs. Digital

[Aswald]

Digital noise is not the same at all. Fuji's attempt to replicate it in the X-T2 doesn't work very well.

 

The very reason for the "random" color pixel arrangements on the X-trans.

 

I've noticed that older digital cameras tend to look more "analogue" than newer ones. I. e. Pro1 has a bit more "character" than Pro2 while Pro2 is up there with the newest sensors/cameras. Also, the same reason why LEICA pics looks the way they do......

 

Subliminally, the market demands are pushing photography into a new phase?

[richardp]

I have been shooting B&W both with a 35 mm Pentax and a Mamiya 645 and have enjoyed the darkroom work, partly because I understand chemistry but am pretty poor with computers. However recently, particularly having explored my X-10, Iam being forced to admit that the digital results, to equal those of film. The only  possible exceptions to this wold be the actual   feel of fibre based darkroom prints cf. digital prints, and the results obtainable in wet chemistry with lith printing. However, whether it is worthwhile keeping a room in a normal home as a darkroom simply for this is debatable!

 

Richard

[Aswald]

I have been shooting B&W both with a 35 mm Pentax and a Mamiya 645 and have enjoyed the darkroom work, partly because I understand chemistry but am pretty poor with computers. However recently, particularly having explored my X-10, Iam being forced to admit that the digital results, to equal those of film. The only  possible exceptions to this wold be the actual   feel of fibre based darkroom prints cf. digital prints, and the results obtainable in wet chemistry with lith printing. However, whether it is worthwhile keeping a room in a normal home as a darkroom simply for this is debatable!

 

Richard

 

I think that there are no value one can put on a photograph which means something to you. So, yeah, I would say it's worth it as long as you can afford it.

[Rand47]

I can remember how bummed out I was after retiring in 1998 and buying a nice complete medium format film system.  Not long after that (a year or two?) I was introduced to digital photography with a little Olympus "something or other model" that had 4 megapixel "small" sensor.  I bought one for kicks, and took a class in Photoshop at the local art institute.  I bought an Epson 1280 dye-ink printer and made some 8x10 prints from the little Olympus digital point and shoot.  DANG... the digital prints were sharper and more detailed than the lab prints I was getting from 645 film.  I kept my mouth shut because it seemed ridiculous to say something like this.

 

Later on, Michael Reichmann on the Luminous-Landscape published an article declaring one of the early Canon Dxx cameras ( I don't precisely remember which one, but one of the early ones ) "better than 35 mm film."  I remember feeling a little "justified" in my own conclusions.  I sold all my film gear.  Since then things have improved markedly.  In 2009 or thereabouts, I remember reading and article with sample photos Illustrating how the Sony a900 FF DSLR was superior to 6x9 film.  It wasn't marginally superior, it was stunningly superior. 

 

With the advent of really high quality pigment ink printers, excellent post processing software like Lightroom and Capture One, and the ongoing increase in both resolution and dynamic range of digital sensors, it really isn't worth discussing anymore.  Film is fun, the process of shooting it and developing it, and printing in a wet darkroom is satisfying.  I'd done that since the 50's and remember it fondly.  Watching an image appear on paper in the developing tray was truly a magical experience, and the physical / visceral process of manipulating physical chemistry and paper and film was something special that not everyone could do well.  But that aside, digital is superior in every measure of image quality.  Discussions of "film like"-ness are fine and things like Fuji's Classic Chrome are expressions of that.

 

Even though I'm hugely nostalgic about my old Leica M4 and my Olympus OM-3Ti, and my Leitz and Bessler enlargers, etc., I don't kid myself into thinking they were somehow better than what I have in my hands today with my Fuji X-Pro2 and X-T2 cameras and lenses and my Epson SC P800 printer.

 

Rand

[lleo]

Put it in this way: photography is to digital as vinyl is to cd. The fact that there are programs (ridiculous for my opinion) that add hisses and scratch sounds to a digitally recorded music, makes to think...

[Tom H.]

Put it in this way: photography is to digital as vinyl is to cd. The fact that there are programs (ridiculous for my opinion) that add hisses and scratch sounds to a digitally recorded music, makes to think...

A properly maintained and cleaned and played lp, should not scratch or hiss. Sadly, that was a side effect of the masses not knowing how to properly care for an lp record...

[lleo]

True, but the heart of the matter is that they made something to make digital music looks like, or better, sounds like, "analog" music.

[Tom H.]

True, but the heart of the matter is that they made something to make digital music looks like, or better, sounds like, "analog" music.

There's a market for everything, and we don't all need to like everything new or old.

[Guest]

Why do I feel happy reading this?

 

"A digital camera would have to be 156 megapixels to give you the same kind of detail as 35mm film".

 

http://istillshootfilm.org/post/114131916747/the-real-resolution-of-film-vs-digital

I was shooting large format (4x5 in), medium format (6x9, 6x6, 6x4.5 cm), 35mm film, including BW and color, slide and negative. I was developing everything on my own, printing and mounting. Today I use Fuji X-Pro2 and X-T2 - both are digital, both 24 Mpx. I don't remember even one moment when I would be missing the film era or really need anything more than digital 24 Mpx. I used 36 Mpx D810 - again, I don't miss these 36 Mpx. The only two things I have been missing and waiting for are good flash system (kind of SB-910) and good and real macro - 1:1, 180-200mm - kind of Nikon AF 200mm f/4.0D IF-ED Micro I still have been using with Metabones adapter.

[Aswald]

I was shooting large format (4x5 in), medium format (6x9, 6x6, 6x4.5 cm), 35mm film, including BW and color, slide and negative. I was developing everything on my own, printing and mounting. Today I use Fuji X-Pro2 and X-T2 - both are digital, both 24 Mpx. I don't remember even one moment when I would be missing the film era or really need anything more than digital 24 Mpx. I used 36 Mpx D810 - again, I don't miss these 36 Mpx. The only two things I have been missing and waiting for are good flash system (kind of SB-910) and good and real macro - 1:1, 180-200mm - kind of Nikon AF 200mm f/4.0D IF-ED Micro I still have been using with Metabones adapter.

 

I think that many would agree with you. In most ways, myself included.

 

I was feeling happy with the notion that we need 156 mpix to match that of 35mm film. This give the implication that we're not buying just the hype.  Makes me feel that my desire buy above 24mpix, justifiable. Whether anyone agrees with this is of course, very personal. Myself included.  

[johant]

Well, reading the other articles on that site, the authors seem to be on a "film is good, digital is bad" mission. Lost battle already, I guess.

 

I must admit that I have not handled a roll of B&W film for the past two years. I think it's going to be a long time before my fridge is empty (if that will ever happen).

[sacherjj]

I was shooting large format (4x5 in), medium format (6x9, 6x6, 6x4.5 cm), 35mm film, including BW and color, slide and negative. I was developing everything on my own, printing and mounting. Today I use Fuji X-Pro2 and X-T2 - both are digital, both 24 Mpx. I don't remember even one moment when I would be missing the film era or really need anything more than digital 24 Mpx. I used 36 Mpx D810 - again, I don't miss these 36 Mpx. The only two things I have been missing and waiting for are good flash system (kind of SB-910) and good and real macro - 1:1, 180-200mm - kind of Nikon AF 200mm f/4.0D IF-ED Micro I still have been using with Metabones adapter.

 

Do you miss the expose for highlights of the D810.  I've never used a D810, but this mode seems like a great idea that should be possible with firmware on the Fuji.

[Aswald]

Well, looks like film just got a spot at FOAM. Simply awesome.

 

http://www.bjp-online.com/2016/10/japanese-photographer-hiroshi-sugimoto-given-major-solo-exhibition-at-foam/

 

https://www.artsy.net/artist/hiroshi-sugimoto/works

 

Of all film formats, I love the large format. I don't think digital can recreate it's effect.

[Guest]

I think that many would agree with you. In most ways, myself included.

 

I was feeling happy with the notion that we need 156 mpix to match that of 35mm film. This give the implication that we're not buying just the hype.  Makes me feel that my desire buy above 24mpix, justifiable. Whether anyone agrees with this is of course, very personal. Myself included.

I see. I was sure I couldn't live without huge resolution and without "matching 35mm film quality" while buying D810. Now I'm not so sure about any of these two "needs" :-)

[Guest]

Do you miss the expose for highlights of the D810.  I've never used a D810, but this mode seems like a great idea that should be possible with firmware on the Fuji.

Not so much. Sure - it would be nice to have automated way to get the exposure to the right without overexposing lights - I have even mentioned it on the X-Pro2 feature wish list, but please keep in mind that D810 has an optical viewfinder. In case of X-Pro2 or X-T2 we have an electronic, WYSISYG finder, with live histogram in it. So even having no highlights exposure mode, I'm still able to achieve the exposure I need the first shot I take.

[Digitalrules]

Why do I feel happy reading this?

 

"A digital camera would have to be 156 megapixels to give you the same kind of detail as 35mm film".

 

http://istillshootfilm.org/post/114131916747/the-real-resolution-of-film-vs-digital

[Digitalrules]

I shoot 35mm film all the time. And I prefer it to shooting digital but I can tell you right now that even a small 16mp sensor from an X100s can outresolve anything from any 35mm film camera. Even Leica

[Digitalrules]

C

Edited October 21, 2016 by Digitalrules

[Larry Bolch]

I shoot 35mm film all the time. And I prefer it to shooting digital but I can tell you right now that even a small 16mp sensor from an X100s can outresolve anything from any 35mm film camera. Even Leica

 

And way beyond.

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2016/03/when-will-micro-43-equal-medium-format-film-we-have-the-definitive-answer.html

[plaidshirts]

Film definitely has a look that I still can't replicate digitally. The cameras themselves are also marvelous machines that modern cameras can't match.

I don't have any scientific data to back this up (only my eyes), but as far as resolution and clarity is concerned, film can't touch digital.

Edited November 2, 2016 by plaidshirts

[graflex]

Film has soul. It shines through every image like a beacon of truth and authenticity. Digital is the lifeless spawn of a binary devil. Born in a cauldron of data and algorithms it extinguishes the light that film preserves forever. You can always tell when a photo was recorded with film; even scanned and presented on a computer screen film's soul shines through gloriously.

 

Anyone seeing them can easily sort them out

 

http://photojoes.net/film-digital/chert_stream.jpg

http://photojoes.net/film-digital/truck.jpg

http://photojoes.net/film-digital/church.jpg

http://photojoes.net/film-digital/flwr_pot.jpg

http://photojoes.net/film-digital/poverty.jpg

 

Right?