Jump to content

Film vs. Digital

Aswald

By Aswald
in General Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

Aswald Mentor

Aswald

Posted
  • Author
Posted

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
richardp Rookie

richardp

Posted
Posted

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
Aswald Mentor

Aswald

Posted
  • Author
Posted

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Rand47 Explorer

Rand47

Posted
Posted

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
Tom H. Experienced

Tom H.

Posted
Posted

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...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Aswald Mentor

Aswald

Posted
  • Author
Posted

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. :P Makes me feel that my desire buy above 24mpix, justifiable. Whether anyone agrees with this is of course, very personal. Myself included. :D 

Link to post
Share on other sites
johant Mentor

johant

Posted
Posted

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).

Link to post
Share on other sites
sacherjj Contributor

sacherjj

Posted
Posted

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

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. :P Makes me feel that my desire buy above 24mpix, justifiable. Whether anyone agrees with this is of course, very personal. Myself included. :D

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" :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Larry Bolch Collaborator

Larry Bolch

Posted
Posted

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
plaidshirts Enthusiast

plaidshirts

Posted
Posted (edited)

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 by plaidshirts
Link to post
Share on other sites
graflex Contributor

graflex

Posted
Posted

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • Tomek666
      Photos on Angelbird AV Pro SX 160GB vs SE 512GB

      By Tomek666 · Posted

      Im not partal to any brad, just opted to try these based on apparent price / performance.  I'm always looking for best bang per buck, hence Fuji I guess - haha Reliabilty does not concern me, as I always shoot to two cards for pro work (and burst shooting is not a part of that). Made sense for me to get the cheapest / fastest CF cards for hobby shooting.     I just got a Sabrent Rocket V60 512GB cheep (as the back-up card).   As long as neither of these freeze the camera I hope its a cheep solution for my needs. (AB AV Pro SE 512Gb and Sabrent Rocket V60 512GB).  Half a gig of redunat storge for $200USD is something I can live with. (Especially considering I can bust the hell out of the Anglebird). Cheers, Tomek
    • Tomek666
      Charing battery inside the X-H2 over USB

      By Tomek666 · Posted

      Would using an external charger be of benefit to the batteries life? I appreace it can be faster, but I doin't mind pluging in the camera over USB to charge. Does charging via the camera do as good a job as lets say the fuji's own external charger? Does the camera stop charging once the battry is full and not over charge? I couldn't find these deatails in these forums or in the manual. Thank you!   Image below shot on X-T2 in a sunny studio.  

      Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

      Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

    • jerryy
      How to turn OFF the wifi antenna

      By jerryy · Posted

      It is really easy to find out if the wifi is on. Your computer or tablet or cell phone will have a network settings dealing with wifi, bluetooth, ethernet or “other”. Open that up and go into the section for wifi, and take note of which networks are listed. Turn on the camera and keep watching the list of networks. If your camera’s wifi is turned on, a new network should suddenly show up in your computer/tablet/phone’s network listings. Now go into the camera’s menus and start a wireless connection (the x-app or camera remote app can help you with this). You should see a network show up now. It is not hidden because it has to be visible so that your computer/tablet/phone can join the camera’s network to transfer images. Turn the camera off and that network should disappear. Turn the camera back on and see what happens.
    • Fujiron
      black and white (open thread)

      By Fujiron · Posted

      Sweet Creek Falls, Oregon. X-H1, Viltrox 13mm F1.4, Acros.

      Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

      Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

    • Stogursey
      Sigma 500mm F4 + XH2S?

      By Stogursey · Posted

      I think my Fuji 150-600 F8 is a brilliant wildlife lens in terms of sharpness, portability and value but the small aperture does cause issues at the start and end of the day - even pushing the ISO as far as I dare, I can see shutter speed down to 1/25s - stabilisation isn't an issue but asking a deer to stand still for that is too much! In the same situation, an F4 would give 1/100s so the difference to the success rate would be phenomenal... and that's without the other improvements like shallower depth of field. I also find that the Fuji's subject detect AF gets pretty iffy in low light - I keep updating to the latest firmware but it doesn't seem to get any better. I was originally looking at the Nikon 500mm F4 E but good examples secondhand are still reasonably expensive but like-for-like Sigma lenses are around half the price. Reviews I have read suggest that they are as good optically, AF performance and IS-wise but you gain a few hundred grams of weight (but less than the older Nikon model). For a couple of grand, I can live with that. Does anyone have any experience mounting one on an XH2S? What about with the 1.4 teleconverter? It feels like that is pushing it anyway - hefty lens + TC + Fringer all sounds a bit...wobbly? It is on the Fringer approved list but I am wary about AF speed in particular. I had also considered looking for a used Nikon 400mm F2.8, which would be even faster (and heavier) and could couple with a TC to give 560mm F4 but again, it is that lens+TC+Fringer combination that worries me as being just too many links in the chain. Of course, what I really want is a native Fuji prime but that doesn't seem to be on the horizon - and if you look at what Nikon and Sony are doing, if Fuji do ever bring out a 500mm prime, it will probably be a small, light and cheapish F5.6, which is only 2/3 stop better than my zoom at the same focal length. Any thoughts anyone?
×
×
  • Create New...