Film vs digital - is there still a difference?

[rich_dominic]

With digital cameras routinely having eight, ten or even more megapixel resolution, is the old beleif that film has higher resolution than digital still true...? All the articles I've read (like http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html have been old and probably out of date with digital improving so fast. I saw http://digitalliving.cnet.co.uk/asktheeditors/0,39101166,49293064-1,00.htmwhich is newer, but I don't think the guy who wrote it knew what he was talking about. He looks a bit smug as well.

[fionndruinne]

I do believe film is still quite a lot higher in terms of resolution than digital photos. Personally I'm not certain it's a point worth belaboring, because (unless you're making gigantic photos) there comes a point at which higher resolution just doesn't matter. A couple more points:

> The image will always be subject to the limitations of the camera and equipment used, i.e. if your lens only captures so many details, that's going to limit the effectiveness of the photo's resolution no matter whether film or a digital sensor is in use.

> 35mm film will pretty much always have better resolution than an APS-C type digital SLR, because no matter how many pixels are crammed on an APS-C sensor, it is still only about 1/6 (I think?) the size of film. Smaller capture area=less resolution.

> "Full frame" digital cameras with a sensor the size of a 35mm negative are another story. With the advancements being made in digital capturing, who knows. I believe Canon's new 1Ds Mk. III is 22MP.

[griptape]

There are extremely few things that film still holds the advantage in, but they do exist. For instance, scanning or projecting a 4x5 or 8x10 negative will give you far more detail than even best of digital cameras, with more color detail and a little better dynamic range. For 99.99% of people out there, there's no advantage for them personally. For those of us who have seen an 8x10 frame from a multi thousand dollar projector, you really can't deny that it's better. But practical? That's a different story.

I think the one thing that definitively gives film the advantage is highlights/shadows. This is from personal experience as someone who scans film and prints digital pictures full time for a living. Even from a disposable camera, it's extremely rare for me to see blown highlights. Film from an SLR, I can't even recall seeing blown highlights. Digital? Lots, and lots, and lots of white skies that I'm sure were blue. But you can HDR with digital you say? Well, you can dodge and burn with film (yes, I know that can be done digitally too, but it's not quite the same).

But for the average person dropping their film off at the local supermarket (i.e., people who don't have their own dark rooms and a vast amount of knowledge in how to use them), film has practically no advantage.

[erichlund]

There are extremely few things that film still holds the advantage in, but they do exist. For instance, scanning or projecting a 4x5 or 8x10 negative will give you far more detail than even best of digital cameras, with more color detail and a little better dynamic range. For 99.99% of people out there, there's no advantage for them personally. For those of us who have seen an 8x10 frame from a multi thousand dollar projector, you really can't deny that it's better. But practical? That's a different story.

Let's also remember that most of us don't have 4x5 or 8x10 equipment to take such a photo, so those comparisons are somewhat moot. Can you imagine an 8"x10" sensor with the pixel density and size of the D3.

I think the one thing that definitively gives film the advantage is highlights/shadows. This is from personal experience as someone who scans film and prints digital pictures full time for a living. Even from a disposable camera, it's extremely rare for me to see blown highlights. Film from an SLR, I can't even recall seeing blown highlights. Digital? Lots, and lots, and lots of white skies that I'm sure were blue. But you can HDR with digital you say? Well, you can dodge and burn with film (yes, I know that can be done digitally too, but it's not quite the same).

This is a latitude issue. Digital sensors are closer to the dynamic range of slides than negative film, although they continue to get closer. Apparently you don't do a lot of work with slide film, because that has even less latitude than digital. Film also has softer shoulders, so you can recover more from areas that are technically blown.

But for the average person dropping their film off at the local supermarket (i.e., people who don't have their own dark rooms and a vast amount of knowledge in how to use them), film has practically no advantage.

Of course, when you talk about matched formats, one thing you have to consider is grain versus noise. Film may have more latitude, but it cannot match digital for lack of grain / noise. We pixel peep at ISO 6400 and 300% image view to see if we can pick up the noise in these photos (OK, I'm (only slightly) exaggerating). But when was the last time you saw ISO 6400 film. You might find ISO (ASA) 1600, and you can try pushing it two stops (and succeed, don't try that with digital). Compare that to the photos that were released today by Nikon for the D3. Trust me, you'll take the D3 shots.

The real quality revolution will occur when the manufacturers quit trying to fit millions of pixels on teeny, tiny sensors, and make p&s cameras with similar sensors to the dSLRs. Of course, they cannot do that until the products begin to really become basic commodities. Digital cameras are really still in the luxury category, which is why most of us won't be able to take those D3 shots, because $5000 for a camera is still a lot o' money.

[griptape]

This is a latitude issue. Digital sensors are closer to the dynamic range of slides than negative film, although they continue to get closer. Apparently you don't do a lot of work with slide film, because that has even less latitude than digital. Film also has softer shoulders, so you can recover more from areas that are technically blown.

I actually do work with slide film on a... I'd say semi regular basis. It's usually people who want their slides (that are basically obsolete, as it's hard to even track down a slide projector sometimes) put on a CD. Occasionally they want prints too. But it any case, you're right, slides are about the same as far as highlights go as current digital is.