Film or Digital?

[Riku]

Hi,
Im at school and my teacher is telling everyone Film is better.
Is that true?

[griptape]

They both have their advantages and disadvantages.

[downtrodden]

Just like anything else- one is better than the other based ONLY on the person's wants, needs, desires... Sure film has a greater resolution, but you throw away more print froms film, whereas digital, if you don't get the shot, you don't have to go get more film, go back, try the shot again get it developed and then wait to find out it still didn't turn out. Digital, you can just delete and retake- saving time and money. So digital is cheap but film generally has better resoultion.

[D Thompson]

Film has a greater dynamic range.

[toriaj]

My favorite aspect of digital is the educational value of the LCD. Being able to see the picture you took right away helps you learn what to do & not to do. I think if I'd tried to use a film DSLR I'd have given up when all my pics were completely black or completely white and I didn't know why :p or else I would have had to take notes like crazy, come back later with the prints and try to figure out what happened.

[timmciglobal]

The dynamic range argument of film is untrue. The usable DR of most consumer films is much lower.

Digital is in almost all ways better then film now.

Want proof? Most pro's are not using film. If film had better quality then pro's would still be using it since the quality of the pictures matter.

RAW removes almost all the complains film people have regarding JPEG.

Tim

[Rhys]

Not another film v digital argument!

Film has the advantage where the negative is larger - for example sheet film. This is simply because sheet film out-resolves the sensor size of 35mm digital sensors.

Many medium format photographers are rumoured to have changed over to 35mm digital.

Let's look at the maximum print sizes...

A poster is normally 19x27 inches. Assuming a definition of 300 DPI then a camera with 5700 x 7100 pixels is needed (about 35 megapixels). That's in excess of the capability of most 35mm digital cameras. Currently the best dSLRs are around 16mp with 25mp rumoured for the future.

Cutting back to 150 DPI which is adequate for most people with normal eyesight, we have 2850 x 3550 pixels (around 10 megapixels). That's achievable with most current DSLRs.

Most professional photographers print to a maximum of around 20x16. Most magazine centrefolds are around 20x16. This is achievable with 6 megapixels.

News photographers could care less about megapixels since the print resolution of newspapers is so low. Many were still using 2 megapixel cameras while everybody else was on 4 or 5.

Medium format has gone digital but the last time I looked they were 22mp. I imagine it's more now. There are larger format digitals but they're pan and scan so they don't really count as they're too slow to use for anything likely to move.

I can honestly say that I get more definition on an 8x10 from digital than I could have ever had from 35mm with FP4, HP5 or TMAX 3200.

[cdifoto]

Film is a pain in the ass. I choose digital.

[Graystar]

Hi,
Im at school and my teacher is telling everyone Film is better.
Is that true?

Yes. I mean...no. I mean...read this...

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html

This is another interesting read...
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2/
________
Discuss Vaporizers (http://vaporizer.org/forum/herbal-vaporizers/)

[Rhys]

Film is a pain in the ass. I choose digital.

I always used to put the film in my camera. Perhaps that was your problem? :p

[BBPhoto]

I say go digital and use Alien Skin Exposure 2. It is one fantastic plugin.

[Graystar]

I always used to put the film in my camera. Perhaps that was your problem? :p

It's gotta be worse than a memory card :p
________
Corolla E90 (http://www.toyota-wiki.com/wiki/Toyota_Corolla_E90)

[Rhys]

It's gotta be worse than a memory card :p

Especially if it's a Polaroid 620 cartridge.

[AdamW]

Hi,
Im at school and my teacher is telling everyone Film is better.
Is that true?

Your teacher is a fool. It's like saying that watercolors are better than oil paints. Or pens are better than pencils. Or matt paper is better than glossy. Or a violin is better than a piano. Or Nikon is better than Canon. They're different tools to create photographs. You can use either one to make great pictures. You choose one over the other for many reasons, both practical and artistic.

Sounds like your teacher has spent too long in poorly ventilated darkrooms.

[Rhys]

Your teacher is a fool. It's like saying that watercolors are better than oil paints. Or pens are better than pencils. Or matt paper is better than glossy. Or a violin is better than a piano. Or Nikon is better than Canon. They're different tools to create photographs. You can use either one to make great pictures. You choose one over the other for many reasons, both practical and artistic.

Sounds like your teacher has spent too long in poorly ventilated darkrooms.

Or bitterness because he has kit that cannot be upgraded to digital?

[SpecialK]

Better than what? I could never go back to film.

[Beowulff]

I actually miss film, although I haven't shot any for nearly a decade now. For some undefinable reason, I used to enjoy using a film camera (Pentax SLR) much more than my current Fuji E900.

I think it was a matter of better ergonomics, a more intuitive user interface, less critical settings adjustments, and a generally more forgiving medium (film v. sensor).

I also miss DoF preview, needle metering, manual focussing that works and mechanical zoom on the lens barrel.

With digital, we seem to spend half our time pressing buttons, rotating command wheels, and scrolling through pages of menus!

Cheers :)

[Riku]

Thanks to all your responses. I am studying Multimedia Certificate III at TAFE. I posted this because I do not believe what my teacher was teaching us. He was telling us that film picks up more detail than film.
I might post some of my work from school.
btw I am 15 years old.

[Rhys]

I like digital because I can shoot more and the "film" takes up less space. I also like the instant results.

I like film because the cameras in general worked more along the lines that I wanted them to. Digital is pretty much all autofocus with no in-body visual focussing aids. This combined with the lack of a hyperfocal scale on most lenses leads to problematic focussing situations. With film I'd know I had the shot. With digital it's guesswork and the LCD is too small to estimate accurately how good the focus is - even on full zoom.

[AdamW]

Or bitterness because he has kit that cannot be upgraded to digital?

Well, if he's a teacher, he probably can't afford it!

[AdamW]

Thanks to all your responses. I am studying Multimedia Certificate III at TAFE. I posted this because I do not believe what my teacher was teaching us. He was telling us that film picks up more detail than film.
I might post some of my work from school.
btw I am 15 years old.

If he meant that film has better resolution than digital, than for dslr and medium format he's just plain wrong.

You've got a skeptical mind--I like that in a 15-year-old. I'm a teacher myself, and a good attitude for you to have is that your teachers generally know a lot, but they're not perfect. Trust your instincts: if it sounds like nonsense, it may very well be.

By the way. what and where is TAFE?

[Screenclutter]

Forgetting about the picture quality question and cost aspect for a second, I think you can learn way more about photography in a much shorter time with digital.

A fully manual point-and-shoot will keep you busy for a while before you will realize its limitations, and decide to upgrade to a dSLR.

[Beowulff]

Technical and Further Education or TAFE is a tertiary educational institute in Australia.

:)

[Rhys]

Well, if he's a teacher, he probably can't afford it!

Lol. Maybe. It depends on whether the country you're in values education. I have worked in many countries as an English language lecturer and found that in many the weeks wage for a normal teacher in that country will barely house let alone feed that teacher.

[erichlund]

My problem with such a teacher is not with whether film is better than digital, but that he presents it as an uncorroborated fact. First of all, we have too many teachers which present facts, and too few that ask their students to think for themselves.

The proper way for this question to be handled in a classroom would be for the teacher to ask the question, which is better, then present some evidence for both to stimulate thought. Then to assign the students the task of further investigation and ask them to support a conclusion.

Bad teacher.

[JTL]

Tell the teacher to load up some ASA 100 film in his camera...then shoot some pics, then turn the dial to ASA 1600 and take some shots...throw in some shots at ASA 400, and then, on the same roll, some more shots at ASA 200...and then develop the roll and review the shots. :D:cool::D

And, did you ever push-process ASA 100 to ASA 1600? Like what you saw? ;)

For ISO flexiblity alone, digital is a superior working tool in general.

[cdifoto]

Teacher's a Luddite. Do what you gotta do for the grade but take the info with a grain of salt.

[JTL]

Yes. I mean...no. I mean...read this...

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html

This is another interesting read...
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2/
Those articles are a few years old, so digital is even more superior than those articles state. He was using a 10D as an example in the first article! A great camera no doubt, but one that has been significantly surpassed in output quality since that article was written.

[fotogmarc]

This could be just a case of a purist refusing to move on to digital. 20 yrs ago we had the same thing for vinyl albums to CD's. The purists believed cd's were not authentic enough (no hiss or background noise was their complaint).

A teacher who preaches that film is better is on a risky and somewhat irresponsible road. Besides the advantages of shooting digital (cost, editing). it teaches alot more about photography and computer use.
In film days we knew a little about ASA (ISO) and aperture. Digital requires much more knowledge and we can financially afford to experiment with all the images want want to shoot..
We can argue dr and image quality forever, but the purpose of teaching is to prepare students for the real world and digital photography is the better way to do it.

[T06]

I actually miss film, although I haven't shot any for nearly a decade now. For some undefinable reason, I used to enjoy using a film camera (Pentax SLR) much more than my current Fuji E900.

I think it was a matter of better ergonomics, a more intuitive user interface, less critical settings adjustments, and a generally more forgiving medium (film v. sensor).

I also miss DoF preview, needle metering, manual focussing that works and mechanical zoom on the lens barrel.

With digital, we seem to spend half our time pressing buttons, rotating command wheels, and scrolling through pages of menus!

Cheers :)
Sounds like you need a smarter camera!;):D

[SpecialK]

20 yrs ago we had the same thing for vinyl albums to CD's. The purists believed cd's were not authentic enough (no hiss or background noise was their complaint).

Actually - with the right equipment - vinyl has a wider and smoother tonal range, compared to CD's that have discreet binary steps. But I'm not going back to LP's, either.

[cdifoto]

I actually miss film, although I haven't shot any for nearly a decade now. For some undefinable reason, I used to enjoy using a film camera (Pentax SLR) much more than my current Fuji E900.

I think it was a matter of better ergonomics, a more intuitive user interface, less critical settings adjustments, and a generally more forgiving medium (film v. sensor).

I also miss DoF preview, needle metering, manual focussing that works and mechanical zoom on the lens barrel.

With digital, we seem to spend half our time pressing buttons, rotating command wheels, and scrolling through pages of menus!

Cheers :)

You're not even comparing an SLR to a dSLR. All those features are still present on dSLRs worth their salt. In other words, that's not a film vs digital thing. That's a you-didn't-get-a-real-camera thing.

[tim11]

The debate is dead. However, even if film offer better dynamic range than digital you will have to be a pro or a keen (or mad?) amateur to utilise that advantage. Otherwise you will have to fight your mom/dad/wife,husband/children for a room in the house to use solely for a dark room.

[Razr]

Hi,
Im at school and my teacher is telling everyone Film is better.
Is that true? For print film going directly to prints and for B&W prints emphatically yes.
Print film is less adept if you want to convert its output to digital files.
There you add processing steps which can diminish print film's greatest attributes of textures and visual appeal.
Slide film is even more of a chore to accurately digitize.

Digitized film files displayed on electronic screens are not "true" to the scenes they are purported to depict.

[Razr]

Owning both film and digital SLRs, the tactile feeling, the sense of accomplishment when shooting film and the utter-nearly sensual sense of my Pentax LX shutter "shushing" makes my other SLRs "pale to insignificance", particularly my EOS "Robocameras".
**My Pentax K-1000 on the other hand can make perfect exposures without batteries; at night.

[Razr]

Thanks to all your responses. I am studying Multimedia Certificate III at TAFE. I posted this because I do not believe what my teacher was teaching us. He was telling us that film picks up more detail than film.
He was correct: film (print at least) picks up more details, in particular B&W and has vastly superior exposure latitude (up to five steps), which neither digital nor slides can provide.
***Some B&W print films are shot at ISO 26,400 in order to produce marble to golf ball sized "grain" in a 20 x 30 print.

[AdamW]

Digitized film files displayed on electronic screens are not "true" to the scenes they are purported to depict.

Razr--your comments are really fascinating.

[JTL]

Razr--your comments are really fascinating.Why do you even bother? :D:p:D

[Razr]

Razr--your comments are really fascinating.As to your observation: print film is for prints, thus prints are the only medium which do print film justice.
A digital file, like slide film, has far less exposure latitude and thus, digital files and slides can-(and more often than not-need) to be "post processed" to wring the best out of the image.

A properly exposed, properly processed negative can go straight to the enlarger to make print after print with no variations.
Each negative out of the same properly exposed, properly processed roll can do the same.

Nearly any modern print film can make perfect 16 x 20 prints, unlike all but a few DSLRs.

Any well maintained film SLR can wring the best out of modern film.

There are at least four (4) film SLRs which can shoot film without batteries.

Film does not require a computer, or printer.

Whatever "speed" or cost advantage digital may proport to own over film is illusory.
The only such advantage digital has over film is printing at home, though the cost of printing at home is feloniously expensive and time consuming.
Worse for home printing? Even the best printer demands test prints, which in themselves waste more expensive ink.

My "out the door on an errand" camera?
Panasonic DMC-FZ20.
Special events camera(s)?
EOS 1n, EOS3, Olympus E-510 and new Olympus E-3.
Weddings and portraits?
Pentax 67.


Best things about 4/3rds digital (to me)?
Shooting legacy lenses (including 645, 67, screwmount, nikon, Canon, Pentax, Lieca)-etc. on my thin 4/3rds steel mount E bodies.
For "Telephotophiles"? Shooting 300mm (@600m 35mm eq.) Canon FD f/2.8 lenses.

[tim11]

-----
Film does not require a computer, or printer.
True that. But don't forget FILM does need a dark room and a few drums of chemical.

[Razr]

True that. But don't forget FILM does need a dark room and a few drums of chemical.Nah. Film only needs Walgreen's/SAMS/Walmart/CDV.
But if you want to "roll your own", there are dry to dry film processors (JOBO and others) from $200.
Film is also just the end of the compose-shoot process series for competent shooters. Those who prefer film from shoot to process to print do not, at the same time, consider the time a waste.
Time spent over an easel is many times a wondrous event, as you watch your creations coming to life.

Bow hunters are kindred spirits, eschewing the cold calculated way rifle wielding hunters kill from a distance, their game only a fuzzy thing in a scope.
Bow hunters have to get up close and personal with their quarry, as do film shooters have to personalize their events, chemicals and all.

[Norm in Fujino]

Nah. Film only needs Walgreen's/SAMS/Walmart/CDV.
But if you want to "roll your own", there are dry to dry film processors (JOBO and others) from $200.

Eh, what's the fun in that? "There's nothing like the smell of acetic acid in the morning..."

[tim11]

---
The only such advantage digital has over film is printing at home, though the cost of printing at home is feloniously expensive and time consuming.
Worse for home printing? Even the best printer demands test prints, which in themselves waste more expensive ink.
.
When time is spent on digital you consider it expensive wasteful and felonious. Of course you never mention printing at walmart.

But when time is wasted spending processing film you glorify it as spiritial art:

--
Film is also just the end of the compose-shoot process series for competent shooters. Those who prefer film from shoot to process to print do not, at the same time, consider the time a waste.
Time spent over an easel is many times a wondrous event, as you watch your creations coming to life.

Bow hunters are kindred spirits, eschewing the cold calculated way rifle wielding hunters kill from a distance, their game only a fuzzy thing in a scope.
Bow hunters have to get up close and personal with their quarry, as do film shooters have to personalize their events, chemicals and all.

:rolleyes:




---
Whatever "speed" or cost advantage digital may proport to own over film is illusory. ----
Just use a short example: I can teach an absolute beginner on a digital. Spend 5 minutes shooting in different Aperture then the next 5 minutes seeing the resulting DoF on the computer. And show instantly the correlation between ISO and shutter speed. Not a cent wasted on processing. That can't be done on a film camera.
The advantage is not illusory.

hmm......... I know film has its advantage but if you truly believe it has all the benefit over digital why the FZ20, Olympus E-510 and new Olympus E-3?

[Ray Schnoor]

Nah. Film only needs Walgreen's/SAMS/Walmart/CDV.
This is the same for digital. In this instance, digital definitely has an advantage over film simply for the fact that with digital, you only "have" to go to "Walgreen's/SAMS/Walmart/CDV" once to pick up the prints. With film, you have to go twice, once to drop off and once to pick up. Definite time savings. That is no illusion.

There is not always the need for editing photos with software for digital. I know several people who never do any editing of their digital photos. Instead, they upload them direct from the card to "Walgreen's/SAMS/Walmart/CDV" and then pick them up when they get the chance. Cheap, easy and not time consuming. They also only print/pay for the photos they want, no need to print the entire roll as with film. Definite advantage in cost for digital.


Film does not require a computer, or printer.
As for needing a computer for digital, I had a computer long before I had a digital camera. I would hazard a guess that 99.999% of all digital camera users did not have to buy a computer to process their images, but used the computer they already had in their posession. So there is no additional cost at least in this area. Digital also does not require a printer, only if you want to do your own prints. But then if you want to do your own prints with film, there is also a cost involved. But then again, how many people who already had a computer did not already have a printer? My guess would be not many.

Software comes with most if not all cameras, so you do not have to buy any unless you want want to. No cost there. Of course you can upgrade to more elaborate software, but you can get by on what comes for free with the camera, or use the software available on the "Walgreen's/SAMS/Walmart/CDV" websites.

Your statement

Whatever "speed" or cost advantage digital may proport to own over film is illusory.
as has been shown above is just wrong.

Ray.

[JTL]

There are good arguments to made that a horse and buggy has advantages over an automobile.

O.K...who wants a horse and buggy? :D:p:D

[Bynx]

Ive had a digital camera since last July. Since then Ive taken over 10,000 pictures. Its cost me zip. Who can say that with film camera? I print only what pictures I think are worth it. I play with many in Photoshop which I couldnt do with 35mm without having a scanner. When I go out to shoot I carry a few extra batteries which cost 25 cents each. I can shoot 700 or 800 shots for about $1.50. Anybody able to do that with a 35mm? I can quickly shoot what I need and have it on the computer and off into internet space in a few minutes. Impossible with film. The only advantage film has over digital is larger format camera quality. But that is only a matter of time as the sensors improve and microchips get smaller. I think digital is a blessing. Next to the computer my most favorite use of microtechnology.

[AdamW]

Bow-hunting? That's for techno-fetishists who love the soul-less experience of killing from a distance. I prefer to use my fists.

[Rhys]

Bow-hunting? That's for techno-fetishists who love the soul-less experience of killing from a distance. I prefer to use my fists.

Clean and decisive - I like to pull back and nuke them from orbit just to be sure.

[Bynx]

So is this called hijacking a thread? Keep on track guys.

[Rhys]

So is this called hijacking a thread? Keep on track guys.

No. Hijacking it is when we change the name of the thread and the topic completely. There - look it's a thread about Kellog's Rice Krispies now.

[AdamW]

Thanks a lot, Rhys. Now this is going to become another one of those endless "Rice Krispies versus Cheerios" arguments. Jeff should move it to the "Which cereal should I eat?" forum.

[Rhys]

Thanks a lot, Rhys. Now this is going to become another one of those endless "Rice Krispies versus Cheerios" arguments. Jeff should move it to the "Which cereal should I eat?" forum.

But there's no contest. Cheerios are eaten ONLY in America. Rice Krispies are eaten EVERYWHERE. Rice Krispies win!

[cdifoto]

I can download 1,000 images from my camera's compact flash card in the time it takes to scan a 36 negatives.


Screw film.

[cdifoto]

I can edit my digital files, send them off to a lab halfway across the country in minutes, then have the prints, albums, and proof books on my doorstep three days later.


Screw film.

[cdifoto]

I can chimp my LCD during the formals to ensure that I won't have to explain to the bride and groom three weeks later that the camera mis-fed the roll of film for the entire set of Grandma who just died the other day.


Screw film.

[tim11]

No cfifoto. Cost and time advantage that digital has over film is ALL illusory. ;)

[cpaussie]

Yes, Don that has happened to me a few times when I have not wound the film on properly on the camera, only later to find out that I have missed all my shots.:o I also have two rolls of film waiting to have developed from last weekend which I have not had the time get printed. I think that digital is more convienent than film.
The only digital cam I have is on my mobile phone. I stll shoot film.

btw: Cheerios are also sold in Australia! We call Kellog's Rice Krispies, Rice Bubbles.:)

[JTL]

We call Kellog's Rice Krispies, Rice Bubbles.:)Do you call people who eat them "Rice Bubble Heads"?

BTW, this thred needs to be hijacked and driven off a cliff! :eek:

[Rhys]

http://www.youtube.com/v/ulRN8ZJzais

[cdifoto]

No cfifoto. Cost and time advantage that digital has over film is ALL illusory. ;)
Yeah just like the weddings.

[Vich]

"Better" is subjective.

Film, of course, has a much higher end of potential in the Medium and Large format. The 35mm vs. the latest FF DSLR image quality is a fairly tight race. However; digital really shines in it's ability to compensate for complications on-the-fly, or even after-the-fact.

For the casual user who just buys a roll of ISO 200 film at Wallmart; I'd go with Digital being better in all respects, except in the most ideal conditions.

[SpecialK]

I can download 1,000 images from my camera's compact flash card in the time it takes to scan a 36 negatives.



I can edit my digital files, send them off to a lab halfway across the country in minutes, then have the prints, albums, and proof books on my doorstep three days later.



I can chimp my LCD during the formals to ensure that I won't have to explain to the bride and groom three weeks later that the camera mis-fed the roll of film for the entire set of Grandma who just died the other day.



I once killed a gopher with a stick.
- Frank Burns

:-)

[fotogmarc]

Scene 1

Open field, Billy Bob is working steadily.
Enter Jimmi Joe-
Jimmi Joe: "Whachya doin' Billy Bob"
Billy Bob: "Can't you see I'm whippin' this horse?"
Jimmi Joe: "But Billy Bob can't you see this here horse is dead?"
Billy Bob: "course I can, but it's so hard to stop."

:D:p:D
Any similarites between this scene and anybody named Billy Bob and Jimmi Joe is purely coincidental and is in no way related to either one.
No horses were harmed in the writing of this skit.

[tim11]

Scene 1

Open field, Billy Bob is working steadily.
Enter Jimmi Joe-
Jimmi Joe: "Whachya doin' Billy Bob"
Billy Bob: "Can't you see I'm whippin' this horse?"
Jimmi Joe: "But Billy Bob can't you see this here horse is dead?"
Billy Bob: "course I can, but it's so hard to stop."

:D:p:D
Any similarites between this scene and anybody named Billy Bob and Jimmi Joe is purely coincidental and is in no way related to either one.
No horses were harmed in the writing of this skit.

Well if Billy Bob finds whipping a dead horse is a habit too hard to break but fun then I can perfectly understand; and I say "Keep it up Billy!". However if Billy Bob thinks to replace a dead horse with a bicycle (so to ride on the future) is wasting time and money then I think Billy Bob is a lunatic.