Just curious what people think about this comparison. IMHO, the current crop
of digital cameras blow away 35mm film, at least color print film. (Remember
grain? I was never satisfied with 8x10s blown up from 35mm film.)
On Aug 27, 9:03*am, "Bob Donahue" <bobm...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Just curious what people think about this comparison. IMHO, the current crop
> of digital cameras blow away 35mm film, at least color print film. (Remember
> grain? I was never satisfied with 8x10s blown up from 35mm film.)
>
> --
> Bob D.
Depends on what speed you used. If you used a fast film, 400 or 800 or
higher, then I agree. !00 print film did make fine 8 x 10s, though.
That being said, I haven't used my film camera in a looong time. I am
keeping it, but haven't found much use for it lately.
"Bob Donahue" <bobmgtd@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:CdGdnTewPdk5wyjVnZ2dnUVZ_uGdnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> Just curious what people think about this comparison. IMHO, the current
> crop of digital cameras blow away 35mm film, at least color print film.
> (Remember grain? I was never satisfied with 8x10s blown up from 35mm
> film.)
No 35mm film camera I ever used can touch the 5D. And, if the 50D delivers
as promised, the gap will grow even more.
The difference is there at ISO 100, but by ISO 800 digital absolutely blows
film out of the water.
On Aug 27, 9:03*am, "Bob Donahue" <bobm...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Just curious what people think about this comparison. IMHO, the current crop
> of digital cameras blow away 35mm film, at least color print film. (Remember
> grain? I was never satisfied with 8x10s blown up from 35mm film.)
>
> --
> Bob D.
I don't think there is a proper comparision. A print is a second
generation from a negative or slide. so comparing a digital file which
is first generation to a print which is second generation is not truly
a fair comparison. Now, if we are to compare a digital file to an
original slide (kodachrom or ektachrome) then it would be a fair
contest. However, there isn't a way to accurately view slides with
out a scan, which is a second generation again. So, my point it this,
does it really matter?
Digital Images have allowed us to view first generation files, so
there really isn't any need to compare them to anything.
Also, print quality varies so much from vendor to vendor that a print
should never be used in any comparisons.
In message
news:183a2a75-ecd9-43c1-a50a-6a480ddb5f08@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com,
"RoushPhotoOnline.com" <jroush@roushstudios.com> done wrote:
> On Aug 27, 9:03*am, "Bob Donahue" <bobm...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Just curious what people think about this comparison. IMHO, the
>> current c
> rop
>> of digital cameras blow away 35mm film, at least color print film.
>> (Remem
> ber
>> grain? I was never satisfied with 8x10s blown up from 35mm film.)
>>
>> --
>> Bob D.
>
> I don't think there is a proper comparision. A print is a second
> generation from a negative or slide.
Or from a digital.
> so comparing a digital file which
> is first generation to a print which is second generation is not truly
> a fair comparison.
Most people don't view "first generation" digital files. In fact, nobody
CAN view "first generation" digital files at full resolution. A UXGA
(1600x1200) monitor has only 1.9 megapixels; digital files have 12mp.
The highest resolution monitor is WQUXGA (3840x2400, still far short of
displaying a native 12mp file. Oh, and it's $20,000.00 with a 300:1
contrast ratio that will make your "first generation" file look like
crap.).
So digital must be viewed as a print as well if one wants to get full
resolution.
> Now, if we are to compare a digital file to an
> original slide (kodachrom or ektachrome) then it would be a fair
> contest. However, there isn't a way to accurately view slides with
> out a scan, which is a second generation again.
Ever heard of projectors? Ilfochrome? You're a "photo instructor"?
Yikes.
> So, my point it this,
> does it really matter?
> Digital Images have allowed us to view first generation files
Yeah, either reduced to 25% resolution to fit a monitor, or by scrolling
to see 1/6th of the picture at a time at full res. Pfft.
"RoushPhotoOnline.com" <jroush@roushstudios.com> wrote:
>Digital Images have allowed us to view first generation files,
I repectfully disagree.
First of all you cannot view RAW sensor data. They need to be processed
into some picture format, very often JPEG. So your JPEG file is already
second generation.
And second you cannot view the JPEG file directly, either. It is either
printed on some paper or displayed on a display device like a CRT or LCD
or projector. Thus what you are seeing is third generation at best.
"Bob Donahue" <bobmgtd@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:CdGdnTewPdk5wyjVnZ2dnUVZ_uGdnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>
> ........I was never satisfied with 8x10s blown up from 35mm film.)
> --
You need to change your colour lab Bobby boy - seriously.
In message <904bb4pdjs6d46f9hpqg208uun31djm5e2@4ax.com>, Jürgen Exner
<jurgenex@hotmail.com> writes
>"RoushPhotoOnline.com" <jroush@roushstudios.com> wrote:
>>Digital Images have allowed us to view first generation files,
>
>I repectfully disagree.
>
>First of all you cannot view RAW sensor data.
Yes you can,. I use my RAW processor for that. I can view the RAW data
in the RAW processor. Then after I have made changes I can process it
into a JPG, TIFF PNG etc at various standards of resolution, size etc.
> They need to be processed
>into some picture format, very often JPEG. So your JPEG file is already
>second generation.
No the resultant JPEG/TIFF/PNG is second generation. However I get to
chose the parameters far more than you can in a dark room.
If you screw up the developing you can't go back
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Don Stauffer in Minnesota <stauf...@usfamily.net> wrote:
> Bob Donahue" <bobm...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Just curious what people think about this comparison...
>
> Depends on what speed you used. If you used a fast film,
> 400 or 800 or higher, then I agree. 100 print film did
> make fine 8 x 10s, though.
I've found that ISO 100 has also generally been fine when digitized
and then printed at 8 x 12 with an inkjet. Of course, there's also
been ISO 64, 50 and 25 for finer grain, plus there's still something
about the luminocity of a projected slide...
> That being said, I haven't used my film camera...
Once we've crossed certain "resource" threshholds (eg, computer,
printer, storage, etc), digital is a lot like a music CD versus
classical vinyl: it may not necessarily be some so-called "ultimate"
in performance, but there's not much reason to debate that because
what it does do is make it "very easy" to be "very good".
As such, digital imaging has now clearly progressed to the point where
it raises the bar of what can be expected to be achieved on 'average',
which is effectively also why it has been embraced by the
mainstream.
And what this also means is that the question of if it also exceeds
the 'ultimate' performance potential of the medium of film really
isn't germane to the basis of why the mainstream adopted it.
"Bob Donahue" <bobmgtd@comcast.net> wrote in message news:CdGdnTewPdk5wyjVnZ2dnUVZ_uGdnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> Just curious what people think about this comparison. IMHO, the current crop
> of digital cameras blow away 35mm film, at least color print film. (Remember
> grain? I was never satisfied with 8x10s blown up from 35mm film.)
>
> --
> Bob D.
>
>
To almost everyone's replies...
It is interesting how you make the difference into a hot sport of only seeking
the best of perfection you can find in what you do, and racing_it_up that digital
is the answer in all of it's perfection capabilities... does anyone remember "art"
and the artististic capabilities of film photography? I personally can and yet
cannot justify the digital application of such effects as to being unnatural and
artificial, as well as too easily done... "apply filter effect"... done. I have seen
printed digital photographic art in galleries and online and in magazines and I
think it is mundane, boring and obvious no matter how fantastic it is.
What is acceptable 'to me' is the developing and scanning of film, that level of
digital and not much more.
IMO digital slr is for business imagery including weddings, wildlife, sports, war,
and journalism photography. P/S cameras are just for that, capturing a memory.
But as far as real art that is true art, film is the only way to go. And darkroom
all the better. I think art should be "Earthy", and humanly done by actual work
and imagination.
I really believe there should be some level of differenciation in everyone's digital
thinking about it. Try to, in your own mental capabilities, scope yourself a much
grander overall picture of photography and all of it's involvements.
Yet, I scan film to digital because I am too financially strapped to own a
darkroom. And that is because of health problems.
35mm film VS digital 
Linear Mode
