Film vs digital (1 Viewer)

Richardus · Nov 16, 2004

I've always regarded digital photograpy (DP) as just for taking pictures of your holidays, birthdays and things like that. Why? because it doesn't give the same range of colors as film photography, and those giving near color range as film photography are quite expensive. Besides, DP is not as "romantic" as film photography. I mean, what's the funny thing about viewing the picture just after taking it?

Film photography, on the contrary, gives you more "freedom", since you can choose the quality of the picture, it's speed, the kind of the film etc, negatives and slides last longer (I read somewhere that each time you open a digital image, it lose a little bit of quality), and even cheap SLR cameras (both bodies and lenses) have an acceptable quality.

But, what do u think?

Mickymouse · Nov 16, 2004

In 5 years time you wont be able to buy film any more and the bit about opening a Digital photo and it degrading is absolute rubbish.

Mick

Katy Penland · Nov 16, 2004

Mickymouse said:
In 5 years time you wont be able to buy film any more

:eek!: I sure hope you're wrong about that! I'm gonna start stockpiling Velvia and freezing it.

and the bit about opening a Digital photo and it degrading is absolute rubbish.

Mick

Um, actually, it is true if you're talking about opening and re-opening JPG vs., say, TIFF formatted images. In JPG images, the computer is digitally compressing and refilling in pixels to recreate your picture each time. Because the integrity of each pixel's color cannot be retained, over time your image will degrade. Because the TIFF format isn't compressed, you see the exact same pixel arrangement each time it's opened and reopened. I know that's an oversimplification and I'm sure someone far more knowledgeable than I am can better explain the process.

Not trying to speak for Richard, but I assumed that's what he meant by image degradation.

normjackson · Nov 16, 2004

"jpeg myths and facts"

http://graphicssoft.about.com/library/weekly/aa0104jpegmyths.htm

walwyn · Nov 16, 2004

Katy Penland said:
Um, actually, it is true if you're talking about opening and re-opening JPG vs., say, TIFF formatted images. In JPG images, the computer is digitally compressing and refilling in pixels to recreate your picture each time. Because the integrity of each pixel's color cannot be retained, over time your image will degrade. Because the TIFF format isn't compressed, you see the exact same pixel arrangement each time it's opened and reopened. I know that's an oversimplification and I'm sure someone far more knowledgeable than I am can better explain the process.

Not trying to speak for Richard, but I assumed that's what he meant by image degradation.

No its not true. The image won't degrade because you have opened/reopened it. Each time you decompress the jpg you get back the same image you had when you last read it. You can do this until hell freezes over and the image will remain the same, which can't be said for prints. Where degradation occurs is if you repeatedly edit a jpg and save it, then read back the saved jped and save it, ...

Katy Penland · Nov 17, 2004

Aha! Thanks to you both, Walwyn and Norm, for further elucidation. Great article, Norm. I'm saving it for future reference.

Wiping egg off my edited face.....

Andrew Rowlands · Nov 17, 2004

walwyn said:
No its not true. The image won't degrade because you have opened/reopened it. Each time you decompress the jpg you get back the same image you had when you last read it. You can do this until hell freezes over and the image will remain the same, which can't be said for prints. Where degradation occurs is if you repeatedly edit a jpg and save it, then read back the saved jped and save it, ...

I think that rotation of a .jpeg can, with some types of software, lead to loss.

Andy.

walwyn · Nov 17, 2004

Andrew Rowlands said:
I think that rotation of a .jpeg can, with some types of software, lead to loss.

Only if you save back as jpeg. However, unless its a test card, I doubt that you'll be able to see where the degradation has occurred. So do your editing and saving in TIFF format and then save your final image as jpeg for the web.

Doug Greenberg · Nov 17, 2004

Richardus said:
I've always regarded digital photograpy (DP) as just for taking pictures of your holidays, birthdays and things like that. Why? because it doesn't give the same range of colors as film photography, and those giving near color range as film photography are quite expensive. Besides, DP is not as "romantic" as film photography. I mean, what's the funny thing about viewing the picture just after taking it?

Film photography, on the contrary, gives you more "freedom", since you can choose the quality of the picture, it's speed, the kind of the film etc, negatives and slides last longer (I read somewhere that each time you open a digital image, it lose a little bit of quality), and even cheap SLR cameras (both bodies and lenses) have an acceptable quality.

But, what do u think?

If Richardus likes to use film, he should use film. It's really as simple as that.

But it's true: it won't be long (ten years, probably) before film will have gone the way of the poor, extinct Dodo bird. At this moment, there probably are some advantages still to film in terms of absolute level of detail and color range. But this is rapidly changing, and the advantages of digital for me far outweigh its disadvantages.

I see the biggest headache with digital is the problem of handling whites. They are just too easily "blown out." The newest digital cameras are already starting to solve this problem, however (the new Nikon D2X, for example).

The prices for digital cameras as it relates to image quality is continuing to fall, as well.

As for color quality, saturation, the "Velvia" effect, etc., well, the advances in post-processing color management have been incredible and this improvement will continue. I suspect before long you'll be able to take a digital exposure and in post-processing choose which "film effect" you wish to achieve, whether it's Kodachrome, Velvia, etc.

walwyn · Nov 17, 2004

Richardus said:
I've always regarded digital photograpy (DP) as just for taking pictures of your holidays, birthdays and things like that. Why? because it doesn't give the same range of colors as film photography, and those giving near color range as film photography are quite expensive. Besides, DP is not as "romantic" as film photography. I mean, what's the funny thing about viewing the picture just after taking it?

Film photography, on the contrary, gives you more "freedom", since you can choose the quality of the picture, it's speed, the kind of the film etc, negatives and slides last longer (I read somewhere that each time you open a digital image, it lose a little bit of quality), and even cheap SLR cameras (both bodies and lenses) have an acceptable quality.

But, what do u think?

Well I've been amazed at the amount of detail that is recorded by a basic 2Mb digital camera (see photo) even when the result been reduced to 1/8th its original size.

Secondly 16 million colours seems like an aweful lot to me. I'm not sure that the eye can actually resolve the difference between them. Which is why jpeg (though lossy) works, you can't see the degradation in a normal photograph. Its also why steganography works.

Having seen the quality of high street film processors in the last year I'm astonished at the poor quality that people accept for prints. The three I've used have produced really appalling prints, colour balance wrong, badly focused, badly exposed, and scratched negatives. I've gone back to the pro-lab I used 20 years ago. The results are:
http://www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/showphoto.php/photo/36527
http://www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/showphoto.php/photo/33605

Personally I still use film and get the lab to digitally scan the negatives as I can't justify a 16 megapixel digital SLR. However, prices are going nowhere but downwards.

Pinewood · Nov 17, 2004

Strangely, Zeiss maintains that its new line of line of "m" lenses' quality, resolution and colour, can only be realised on film, not digitally. So Zeiss is launching a new film camera!

http://www.zeissikon.com/faq.htm

Happy image making,
Arthur Pinewood

Adey Baker · Nov 17, 2004

There are millions of 35mm, APS, 120 and Large format film cameras still around and new ones are still being introduced - the Nikon F6, for instance, so I don't see film being discontinued just yet!

There may be less choice in the future but it'll still be there - you can still get 127 film; when was the last camera with this format made? 30 years ago? 40?

Richardus · Nov 17, 2004

Wow! all of you seem to be DP enthusiastics! I think you're right in some aspects, tencnology is advancing very quickly and probably film will disappear in some years, and probably DP will surpass Film photography. Prices are going down due to an enormous demand for digital cameras, but, what's the price of good digital cameras nowadays? I think it's wortless spend US 2,000 to buy a good digital camera, when you can get the same quality with a cheap body and a Phoenix lens.

I think today (I mean 2004/11/17) film photography is still better than digital.

CJW · Nov 17, 2004

Let's face it, you keep banging on about cost. Believe me, with film you are on a hiding to nothing.
In September I took 2,500 shots, during a birding holiday in Bulgaria, out of which I kept maybe 10% Cost? Zero. The same number of shots using film would have been in the region of £600. That paid for the camera body alone! On one trip.
Then there's the 'chimping' (looking at a shot immediately after having taken it). This allows someone using digital to confirm (or not, in my case) that you have got the shot you wanted. Imagine the disappointment of waiting for your films to be developed and returned only to find out you missed the shot you wanted.
I can print any of my shots onto photo quality paper at a fraction of the cost. Including 'enlargements'.
Film is pants.

Richardus · Nov 17, 2004

Film have much more resolution than digital photographs, some can reach the equivalent of 500 megas, so, if you take, let's say, 2,000 digital photos, you would need about 1,000,000 megas, about 1428.6 discs. How can you handle such amount of discs? and let's say each disc cost US 1, you'll spend 1400 dollars. And where could you storage all those discs?
Besides, in 5 years, you won't be able to read CDs in any computer, so you will have to change 'em to some new device.

And you'll be able to see film photograps in at least 150 years time.

edenwatcher · Nov 17, 2004

While I haven't gone digital yet, it is only a matter of time (and money) before I get an EOS 20D. The advantages are much as Chris has outlined, however my big reservation is the inability to project. I enjoy slide shows (both my own and watching other people's) and as yet digital projectors do not have the resolution to do justice to digital images. Furthermore they may never do so as there is unlikely to be sufficient demand to produce an affordable data projector with 8-10MP resolution. There are a couple of LCD monitors with that kind of resolution but I dread to think of the cost ...

Rob

pete schofield · Nov 17, 2004

The year is 2014 went shopping for a new SLR camera.

Latest Canon/Nikon 25mega pixel DSLR £2000, had a bit of trouble finding a film camera but did get a couple from the store room. The shop wanted £4000 as they are now regarded as antique. The salesman said he could get me some film but it is quite old stock and £400 a roll.

Ah well happy days.

Pete

walwyn · Nov 17, 2004

Richardus said:
Film have much more resolution than digital photographs, some can reach the equivalent of 500 megas, so, if you take, let's say, 2,000 digital photos, you would need about 1,000,000 megas, about 1428.6 discs.

Not many people need to enlarge their photos onto the side of the Empire State Building. 16 megapixels expanded is plenty good enough for most (2Mb compressed).

Richardus said:
And you'll be able to see film photograps in at least 150 years time.

Only if they are stored properly. Which I believe can be quite expensive.

Richardus · Nov 17, 2004

The year is 2014 [...]

Latest Canon/Nikon 25mega pixel DSLR £2000, had a bit of trouble finding a film camera but did get a couple from the store room. The shop wanted £4000 as they are now regarded as antique. The salesman said he could get me some film but it is quite old stock and £400 a roll.

Lol. It sounds very funny, but I think in 2014 we still will enjoy the delights of the film. There will always be both amateur and professional photographers using film. Probably the point-and-shoot 35mm cameras will desappear soon, but the reflex will last at least three or four decades more.

Not many people need to enlarge their photos onto the side of the Empire State Building. 16 megapixels expanded is plenty good enough for most[...]

I don't think a serious photographer would agree with you. The larger the better (who said size doesn't matter?)

http://www.danharrisphotoart.com/digital.html

walwyn · Nov 17, 2004

Richardus said:
I don't think a serious photographer would agree with you. The larger the better (who said size doesn't matter?)

http://www.danharrisphotoart.com/digital.html

How many people use medium format (120) film vs 35mm?

Hands up now all those that use a Hasselblad for photography!

Of course if you want real art quality you'd be using large format 10x8 sheet film in a view camera.

Film vs digital (1 Viewer)

Active member

Ubuntu Linux user

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Attachments

New York correspondent

Member

Active member

Hit-and-run WUM

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread