Is there any correlation to the stereo debate? I mean, is the warmth and saturation of analogue film more aesthetically pleasing than the digital medium? I noticed even Leica has digital cameras, so I really do not know. Really, it would seem there is some basis for saying that film could capture more warmth and vibrance than a chip. I dont know, because I am an amateur. Thank You.
One more Digital Vs. Analogue question
- Thread starter jerryjg
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
ProAc_Fan
Addicted Member
Hmm interesting question. Digital is actually less "grainy" than film. Take a gander at some ISO 1600 speed film and then have a look see at what a good DSLR can produce at ISO 1600. Except in rare circumstances, almost all professionals have added digital to their arsenals and that should tell you something. Now if all you shoot is huge prints of landscapes perhaps a medium format film camera is still your weapon of choice but for 99% of the snapshot takers digital is tough to beat.
Mike
Mike
Photobitstream
Reformed Audiophile
There is a debate, and the film guys like to frame it in audio terms, but the comparison is ridiculous. I simply laugh when someone tries to convince me film captures a scene more realistically does than a digital sensor. You gonna tell me B&W film is realistic? Or Velvia?
It's all about capturing the light. That's it. Once that is done the photographer gets to interpret the scene as he sees fit. Ansel Adams taught us all how to manipulate B&W film to produce a print that captures the emotion we felt while taking the photo, not to recreate what our eyes saw.
Anyone who argues film produces better prints than digital is ignoring the problems inherent in film: grain (even at low ISO ratings), dust, and decreasing saturation as print size increases. Have you tried making a good 16x20 print from a 35mm negative? I have. The only way to come close to the quality of a good 6MP DSLR is to drum scan the 35mm original and output to the same printer you would use for the digital original.
Shooting landscape is a different ballgame. We still don't have a digital back with the quality and portability of 4x5 film, but the high-end digital cameras are approaching medium format quality, and the price is reasonable. The Canon EOS 5D is about the same price as one lens for a Hassleblad, and Canon L lenses are substantially less expensive than Zeiss glass.
Bottom line is I get better results than 35mm with my Canon EOS 10D, and I can get photos I could not have taken with the Hassleblad system I owned a few years ago. I'd still like a 4x5 for landscapes, though.
It's all about capturing the light. That's it. Once that is done the photographer gets to interpret the scene as he sees fit. Ansel Adams taught us all how to manipulate B&W film to produce a print that captures the emotion we felt while taking the photo, not to recreate what our eyes saw.
Anyone who argues film produces better prints than digital is ignoring the problems inherent in film: grain (even at low ISO ratings), dust, and decreasing saturation as print size increases. Have you tried making a good 16x20 print from a 35mm negative? I have. The only way to come close to the quality of a good 6MP DSLR is to drum scan the 35mm original and output to the same printer you would use for the digital original.
Shooting landscape is a different ballgame. We still don't have a digital back with the quality and portability of 4x5 film, but the high-end digital cameras are approaching medium format quality, and the price is reasonable. The Canon EOS 5D is about the same price as one lens for a Hassleblad, and Canon L lenses are substantially less expensive than Zeiss glass.
Bottom line is I get better results than 35mm with my Canon EOS 10D, and I can get photos I could not have taken with the Hassleblad system I owned a few years ago. I'd still like a 4x5 for landscapes, though.
systemerror909
Active Member
As someone whose been shooting photography for much longer than i've been into audio, maybe I can help explain a few things about these conflicting technologies. Note, both technologies have their setbacks and while I prefer to shoot film, I choose to shoot digital because of cost/convenience. Here are a few things to think about:
1. The fact that nearly every digital camera ever made uses an imaging sensor with a bayer array. Do some homework on this topic and you will see why this is a significant issue. While a digital camera may have 8 mega pixels, usually 50% are green only, 25% are blue only and 25% are red only, meaning that if you take a picture of an entirely red or blue object, you really only have the resolution of a 2mp camera. To date, only 2 DSLRs have been mass produced using technology that captures each color at each pixel, meaning that while I do enjoy the noise/grain free images from my 20d, a good roll of kodachrome or tmax will put the file's resolution to shame.
2. Differences in color balance: As a film shooter I love taking slides, Kodachrome 64 and Velvia 50 are my favorites, but the latter is well known for reproducing colors quite inaccurately. As a personal preference, I often enjoy the bright, highly oversaturated colors that this film produces, similar I suppose to how some audiophiles prefer the increased distortion that single ended tube amplifiers provide. Digital can be made to look this way, but shooting slides is so much easier, you take the picture, develop it and its perfect, provided you had proper exposure, etc. No post processing is involved to make slides look great, just project it on the wall. It is my opinion that digital images look much more like mediocre print film than slide, natural and probably alright but not the "wow" you experience when you either watch a slide show or view a chibachrome print.
The simple fact that 95% of todays pros use digital is in no means an indication that digital is a superior technology. Film is still the most cost effective means for producing images of the highest image quality (8x10 or 4x5), but digital has reached a level of quality that we as photographers are willing to accept in return for some of the inherent advantages of digital. Digital for me has mean much more versatility (variable isos, not limited by film on hand) and has allowed me to take many more photos than I would have in an only film world. Ultimately for me its about taking photos, so for that reason, I've switched to digital.
1. The fact that nearly every digital camera ever made uses an imaging sensor with a bayer array. Do some homework on this topic and you will see why this is a significant issue. While a digital camera may have 8 mega pixels, usually 50% are green only, 25% are blue only and 25% are red only, meaning that if you take a picture of an entirely red or blue object, you really only have the resolution of a 2mp camera. To date, only 2 DSLRs have been mass produced using technology that captures each color at each pixel, meaning that while I do enjoy the noise/grain free images from my 20d, a good roll of kodachrome or tmax will put the file's resolution to shame.
2. Differences in color balance: As a film shooter I love taking slides, Kodachrome 64 and Velvia 50 are my favorites, but the latter is well known for reproducing colors quite inaccurately. As a personal preference, I often enjoy the bright, highly oversaturated colors that this film produces, similar I suppose to how some audiophiles prefer the increased distortion that single ended tube amplifiers provide. Digital can be made to look this way, but shooting slides is so much easier, you take the picture, develop it and its perfect, provided you had proper exposure, etc. No post processing is involved to make slides look great, just project it on the wall. It is my opinion that digital images look much more like mediocre print film than slide, natural and probably alright but not the "wow" you experience when you either watch a slide show or view a chibachrome print.
The simple fact that 95% of todays pros use digital is in no means an indication that digital is a superior technology. Film is still the most cost effective means for producing images of the highest image quality (8x10 or 4x5), but digital has reached a level of quality that we as photographers are willing to accept in return for some of the inherent advantages of digital. Digital for me has mean much more versatility (variable isos, not limited by film on hand) and has allowed me to take many more photos than I would have in an only film world. Ultimately for me its about taking photos, so for that reason, I've switched to digital.
dew042
Honky Tonk Hero
I think part of what muddles the debate is the quality of the equipement - not neccesarily the medium.
A crappy digital point and shoot when compared to a DSLR with a good lens is not much of a challenge. Frankly, even the best consumer digicams can't give consistant image quality like a high quality SLR lens can. Not much has changed in the underlying optics - garbage in, garbage out.
Even so - the medium of digital has taken leaps and bounds even on the consumer level. At some point I'd like to see the "megapixal" wars end sometime soon. Most people will never need a 8MP camera. I'd rather see technology develop lower noise, higher quality and more sensitive digital sensors. But I never get my way.
dew.
A crappy digital point and shoot when compared to a DSLR with a good lens is not much of a challenge. Frankly, even the best consumer digicams can't give consistant image quality like a high quality SLR lens can. Not much has changed in the underlying optics - garbage in, garbage out.
Even so - the medium of digital has taken leaps and bounds even on the consumer level. At some point I'd like to see the "megapixal" wars end sometime soon. Most people will never need a 8MP camera. I'd rather see technology develop lower noise, higher quality and more sensitive digital sensors. But I never get my way.
dew.
Photobitstream
Reformed Audiophile
"...I do enjoy the noise/grain free images from my 20d, a good roll of kodachrome or tmax will put the file's resolution to shame."
Not arguing here, but I have to ask. Where can you get Kodachrome developed these days. I quit shooting the stuff about eight years ago because a) Kodachrome itself was hard to find and b) there were only about three labs in the country still developing it. K64 is still one of my all-time favorite films. If I want the Velvia look I'll just crank the saturation levels in PhotoShop.
As for T-Max, I started a part-time B&W processing lab in Sunnyvale, CA, in 1996 because I couldn't find anyone to develop T-Max to my standards. Lovely stuff when treated correctly.
dew042, we may be nearing the end of the megapixel wars. Canon's new 30D has the same 8MP sensor as the 20D it replaced. I'm saving my pennies for an EOS 5D. 12MP is plenty for my needs.
Not arguing here, but I have to ask. Where can you get Kodachrome developed these days. I quit shooting the stuff about eight years ago because a) Kodachrome itself was hard to find and b) there were only about three labs in the country still developing it. K64 is still one of my all-time favorite films. If I want the Velvia look I'll just crank the saturation levels in PhotoShop.
As for T-Max, I started a part-time B&W processing lab in Sunnyvale, CA, in 1996 because I couldn't find anyone to develop T-Max to my standards. Lovely stuff when treated correctly.
dew042, we may be nearing the end of the megapixel wars. Canon's new 30D has the same 8MP sensor as the 20D it replaced. I'm saving my pennies for an EOS 5D. 12MP is plenty for my needs.
systemerror909
Active Member
The concerns I brought up with digital are not due to a lack of quality equipment, if anything I've got a better setup for digital than i've got for film. The 20d is a near pro camera and photoshop cs 2 which I use is a pro editing program. Canon, Nikon, Minolta, Pentax and Olympus's top of the line dslrs all suffer from being implemented with bayer type sensors.
Fortunately, there is not much more improvement to be had from 1.6x sized image sensors, not without serious improvements in lens design. Essentially the megapixel war has ended, signalled by the singular act of canon's production of the 30d which has the same sensor as the 20d.
While I haven't bought kodachrome in over a year (last purchased nearly 90 rolls at a superb discount) I used to buy it online at b&h photo video. they also sell slide mailers for the stuff, which is currently only being processed in one singular location in the united states.
Fortunately, there is not much more improvement to be had from 1.6x sized image sensors, not without serious improvements in lens design. Essentially the megapixel war has ended, signalled by the singular act of canon's production of the 30d which has the same sensor as the 20d.
While I haven't bought kodachrome in over a year (last purchased nearly 90 rolls at a superb discount) I used to buy it online at b&h photo video. they also sell slide mailers for the stuff, which is currently only being processed in one singular location in the united states.
Read a couple of these posts and don't recall any experts weighing in on processing. This is a big factor in "grain" for both. Don't care what you say, if you have a 50mp camera but don"t have the printer to match you are spinning your wheels. Same difference as printing a newspaper as opposed to a magazine. Digital just cuts out the film processing. Film processing can be done to tighten or loosen grain. Then, there is the print processing which again affects grain. Both affect the final feel of a photograph. As far as the tired Ansel Adams analogy, yes he did do some manipulating during printing but the fact is, you can't make a great print from a bad negative. Much thought went into the scene before the shutter was released. Also he was primarily a contact printer. Basically resulting in no grain. I'll throw some fuel on the fire and state that digital is great for a so-so shooter and point and shoot. Why? The simple cost factor. You can fire off a hundred shots for zero cost and may get lucky. With film you can't afford to be so cavalier. Even pros have a breaking point. Action and celebrity are a field to theirselves. Let's not forget Photoshop and the others another way out for so-so shots. I can see why a lot of "pros" went digital as it reduced the margin of error, but it will be a long time before silver dies especially b&w.
Film or Digital debate
Folks;
I've been "in the dark" (so to speak) for the last 36 years and there is something unique about a beautiful 4" X 5" black & white negative & the resulting print.
I'm still under the "dark cloth" at 48 and will probably be until the day the pry the cable release from my cold, dead, fingers......(oh, the drama.... :beer: ).
Later; Bongo1976
Folks;
I've been "in the dark" (so to speak) for the last 36 years and there is something unique about a beautiful 4" X 5" black & white negative & the resulting print.
I'm still under the "dark cloth" at 48 and will probably be until the day the pry the cable release from my cold, dead, fingers......(oh, the drama.... :beer: ).
Later; Bongo1976
Photobitstream
Reformed Audiophile
hakka26 said:
Well, yeah. That's pretty obvious. What's your point?
Ansel shot 4x5 film most of his career. If he was "primarily a contact printer" where did all his 8x10 and larger prints originate?
It may be a long time before silver dies, but this professional turned digital not only for convenience, but also because I can get better results with a modest 6MP digital camera than with 35mm film. PhotoShop in not a way out for so-so shots. If you don't get it right in the camera you'll never get an excellent print.
Nice try, but your entire post is wrong.
Gosh, I was wondering why it was taking "Mr. Pro" so long to reply. I guess my "obvious" statement was too obvious but when someone starts talking about drum scanning and printing without mentioning the parameters, to me, they are talking out the side of their neck. Sure it can be difficult to enlarge a 35mm to 16x20 but what are doing with the digital? I know you say 6mp but I honestly don't know how it translates to ASA. What is the output on your printer? Of course if you print a dot finer than the film grain there will be a difference. But I guess everyone knows that. You sound like such an expert that you would shoot a wedding with Kodacolor and DIY or have Sav-on do it with fantastic results. I'm not that good so I would go the conventional route. As far as a 35mm to 16x20 is concerned if it's colour personally I would have a lab try and do it but again I would do some planning if I were going to enlarge to a 16x20. Personally, I don't know anyone who takes snapshots and intends to enlarge to a 16x20 nor would I expect someone to take a 1.5mp to 16x20 (again be aware that I do not know mp:ASA equivalency) . And, why even bother scanning a 35mm when all you are doing is digitizing the print. Rather moot isn't it? I don't have a monster digital printer like yours to do a 16x20 (don't need one at the moment) but I have seen some outputs, and guess it's just me, they leave a different feeling.Photobitstream said:
Speaking of which.Yes, I was in error when I put down contact printing with reference to Adams. Should have been large format (camera) printing. Think faster than I type. And, BTW his main weapon of choice was an 8x10. But, then my sources could be wrong. He developed the Zone System to better record what the eye saw (used the same concept in commercial printing). "Emotion" is a concept. Film is a mechanical medium as is printing. There are many different "blacks" and each one can give a different visual impression. Printed colour is the same way hence the development of the PMS. Neither fathfully reproduces what an eye sees.
So when you say you can "print" a digital image better than you can a 35mm what is your reference? Sharpness? Color? Hue? Feeling? All of the above? As far as taking a better picture with a digital, given the fact that you can do two dozen shots without a thought I would hope you could. Film shooters are left with bracketing (with set shooting). If I'm using a motordrive it's for a reason. I'll say it again if you don't want or need to plan your shots digital is a great thing. And as far as Photoshop etc. if you've never seen how Kincaid and others use it, you have no idea of image manipulation.
And, before anyone else tells me I'm blowing smoke, here is something to chew on. Though this is an older article. My point is, for those having a problem, there is more to producing an image than taking a picture. And, I am not against digital. It just doesn't warrant a major purchases at this time.
Digital vs. film
New technologies can create incredible pictures, but do they compromise the art of photography?
December 16, 2003: 3:09 PM EST
By Peter Lewis, Fortune Magazine
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - I had the extreme pleasure this week of attending an exhibition of photography by Christopher Burkett, whose images of nature are so breathtaking in their luminosity, color, and detail that many observers assume they are digitally enhanced. They are not; Burkett's photos are made on 8-inch by 10-inch color transparencies or medium-format film, without lens filters, and are masterfully printed without digital enhancement of any kind.
Some people resist the idea that the beauty and color captured by Burkett's camera actually exists in nature. Their skepticism says something important not just about our increasing alienation from nature, but also about our increasing acceptance of digital photography and digital image enhancement through software.
Fortune.com
More on technology
Subscribe to Fortune
We know that amazing things can be done to tweak photographs: repairing flaws and blemishes, sharpening colors and contrast, even adding or subtracting subject matter to create an ideal image. (Remember 20 years ago when National Geographic moved the Egyptian pyramids closer together? Or more recently when Time digitally darkened a cover shot of O.J. Simpson to make him appear more sinister?)
But our acceptance of new imaging technology comes at the cost of our trust in the relationship between eye and photo. How curious that, when confronted by photographic images of nature's exquisite beauty, many of us assume they can't possibly be, well, natural.
Burkett has a "no digital prints" symbol on his web site, www.christopherburkett.com. And that started me wondering: Does digital photography and image manipulation debase the true art of photography? Or is the digital camera a miraculous new tool that will allow photographers to achieve new levels of art?
Perhaps both.
And the question arose in my mind, if Ansel Adams -- arguably the most accomplished and certainly the most popular nature photographer of the past century -- were alive today, would he go digital?
"Far be it from me to speak on his behalf, but since I did have contact with him in earlier days, I know that he was a smart and aggressive guy," said Richard LoPinto, vice president for SLR camera systems at Nikon Inc. LoPinto has more than 30 years experience at Nikon, during which time he has seen digital cameras emerge and eventually overtake film cameras.
"He shot with a large-format camera and had the patience to stand around waiting for hours for the perfect shot, but he also used our Nikon FM series cameras," LoPinto continued. "I would like to speculate, and it's purely my personal opinion, that were he with us today he would be really taken by the technology and would be at the forefront."
"In fact," LoPinto said, "I would go so far as to say that if Rembrandt and Picasso and other great artists of the past were alive today, they would not be able to resist the idea of using digital technology. Think of Norman Rockwell. All of his art was based on photographs he made. Conversely, some of the great photographers of our time emulate the techniques of great artists," LoPinto said. "When I take portraits I like to use what you might call Rembrandt lighting, and a digital camera is a wonderful tool for experimentation."
"So, Ansel Adams, yeah, I think he'd love it,' LoPinto said.
And that leads to the hypothetical question, which Nikon digital camera would Ansel Adams use?
"Considering his typical tendency to use high-quality, large-format cameras and his desire that it be handy and convenient, I suspect he would be attracted to our D100, for its size and versatility and overall digital image quality."
But, I asked, is it really possible, with relatively affordable digital cameras, to take a digital image that equals the quality of film? And at what level, in terms of megapixels, does a digital camera equal the resolution of film?
"I recall from the early days of calculating an equivalency, it was thought that with 10 megapixels you would have a digital image that is competitive with a film image," LoPinto said. "But it was a long time ago when that speculation took place. Since then, digital technology has developed dramatically, and many of the artifacts that were associated with digital photography in those early days have gone away. The technology has changed so much.
"Today you'll find countless photographers who are using medium to medium-high resolution sensors, like the CCD in our D1X, that take a 5.9 megapixel image that can be interpolated up to 10 megapixels."
In other words, the image sensors in today's high-end digital cameras add information to the shot that the camera otherwise can't see. The actual pixel count is merely one factor in the overall quality of the camera. The optics, the metering, the various controls and the built-in software all are at least as important as the pixel count.
"I like to say that at the onset of digital photography, it was the megapixel battle. Now it's the megapixel scuffle," LoPinto said. "With new technology we can sharpen images dramatically without changing the spatial resolution of the chip."
Many of Christopher Burkett's photos are printed on paper measuring 30 inches by 40 inches or larger. With most digital cameras in the consumer range, say, 3 megapixels or lower, the camera can't capture enough information on its own to make a print that big. The image would not scale; there would not be enough pixels to fill the larger printing space, and the image would break up, or pixelate.
But as digital cameras and sensors improved, so too did computers and photo-editing software. A new category of scaling software emerged to allow giant prints with out digital artifacts. "Prints as large as 30x40 are well within the realm of today's high-performance SLR digital cameras," LoPinto said. "Making prints the size of 11 by 14, or 11 by 17, or 20 by 24, even 30 by 40, it's a piece of cake. To get there, however, requires an operator of considerable skill."
It also requires big bucks not just for the camera and lenses and large-format photo printers, but also for a powerful computer and special software. And it also requires great patience to learn and master the software.
Recently, an industry analyst who follows the digital camera market made the bold prediction that film camera sales would dwindle into insignificance by 2008. Digital cameras already outsell film cameras. Digital camera sales are growing by double- and even triple-digit percentages each year, while film camera sales are flat or declining. But will film cameras really disappear?
"I find it hard to believe that film will disappear," LoPinto said. "There is still a very, very large audience that just won't do that kind of stuff [digital imaging], and film continues to play important role where time is not a serious factor. I will say, however, that digital will continue to grow. As digital grows in advanced technology and versatility, and as price points fall, digital cameras will gather a bigger and bigger audience. Even the most staunch film users will eventually add digital to their shooting scenarios. Whether it's a compact digital camera or an SLR, it's going to happen."
Digital vs. film
New technologies can create incredible pictures, but do they compromise the art of photography?
December 16, 2003: 3:09 PM EST
By Peter Lewis, Fortune Magazine
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - I had the extreme pleasure this week of attending an exhibition of photography by Christopher Burkett, whose images of nature are so breathtaking in their luminosity, color, and detail that many observers assume they are digitally enhanced. They are not; Burkett's photos are made on 8-inch by 10-inch color transparencies or medium-format film, without lens filters, and are masterfully printed without digital enhancement of any kind.
Some people resist the idea that the beauty and color captured by Burkett's camera actually exists in nature. Their skepticism says something important not just about our increasing alienation from nature, but also about our increasing acceptance of digital photography and digital image enhancement through software.
Fortune.com
More on technology
Subscribe to Fortune
We know that amazing things can be done to tweak photographs: repairing flaws and blemishes, sharpening colors and contrast, even adding or subtracting subject matter to create an ideal image. (Remember 20 years ago when National Geographic moved the Egyptian pyramids closer together? Or more recently when Time digitally darkened a cover shot of O.J. Simpson to make him appear more sinister?)
But our acceptance of new imaging technology comes at the cost of our trust in the relationship between eye and photo. How curious that, when confronted by photographic images of nature's exquisite beauty, many of us assume they can't possibly be, well, natural.
Burkett has a "no digital prints" symbol on his web site, www.christopherburkett.com. And that started me wondering: Does digital photography and image manipulation debase the true art of photography? Or is the digital camera a miraculous new tool that will allow photographers to achieve new levels of art?
Perhaps both.
And the question arose in my mind, if Ansel Adams -- arguably the most accomplished and certainly the most popular nature photographer of the past century -- were alive today, would he go digital?
"Far be it from me to speak on his behalf, but since I did have contact with him in earlier days, I know that he was a smart and aggressive guy," said Richard LoPinto, vice president for SLR camera systems at Nikon Inc. LoPinto has more than 30 years experience at Nikon, during which time he has seen digital cameras emerge and eventually overtake film cameras.
"He shot with a large-format camera and had the patience to stand around waiting for hours for the perfect shot, but he also used our Nikon FM series cameras," LoPinto continued. "I would like to speculate, and it's purely my personal opinion, that were he with us today he would be really taken by the technology and would be at the forefront."
"In fact," LoPinto said, "I would go so far as to say that if Rembrandt and Picasso and other great artists of the past were alive today, they would not be able to resist the idea of using digital technology. Think of Norman Rockwell. All of his art was based on photographs he made. Conversely, some of the great photographers of our time emulate the techniques of great artists," LoPinto said. "When I take portraits I like to use what you might call Rembrandt lighting, and a digital camera is a wonderful tool for experimentation."
"So, Ansel Adams, yeah, I think he'd love it,' LoPinto said.
And that leads to the hypothetical question, which Nikon digital camera would Ansel Adams use?
"Considering his typical tendency to use high-quality, large-format cameras and his desire that it be handy and convenient, I suspect he would be attracted to our D100, for its size and versatility and overall digital image quality."
But, I asked, is it really possible, with relatively affordable digital cameras, to take a digital image that equals the quality of film? And at what level, in terms of megapixels, does a digital camera equal the resolution of film?
"I recall from the early days of calculating an equivalency, it was thought that with 10 megapixels you would have a digital image that is competitive with a film image," LoPinto said. "But it was a long time ago when that speculation took place. Since then, digital technology has developed dramatically, and many of the artifacts that were associated with digital photography in those early days have gone away. The technology has changed so much.
"Today you'll find countless photographers who are using medium to medium-high resolution sensors, like the CCD in our D1X, that take a 5.9 megapixel image that can be interpolated up to 10 megapixels."
In other words, the image sensors in today's high-end digital cameras add information to the shot that the camera otherwise can't see. The actual pixel count is merely one factor in the overall quality of the camera. The optics, the metering, the various controls and the built-in software all are at least as important as the pixel count.
"I like to say that at the onset of digital photography, it was the megapixel battle. Now it's the megapixel scuffle," LoPinto said. "With new technology we can sharpen images dramatically without changing the spatial resolution of the chip."
Many of Christopher Burkett's photos are printed on paper measuring 30 inches by 40 inches or larger. With most digital cameras in the consumer range, say, 3 megapixels or lower, the camera can't capture enough information on its own to make a print that big. The image would not scale; there would not be enough pixels to fill the larger printing space, and the image would break up, or pixelate.
But as digital cameras and sensors improved, so too did computers and photo-editing software. A new category of scaling software emerged to allow giant prints with out digital artifacts. "Prints as large as 30x40 are well within the realm of today's high-performance SLR digital cameras," LoPinto said. "Making prints the size of 11 by 14, or 11 by 17, or 20 by 24, even 30 by 40, it's a piece of cake. To get there, however, requires an operator of considerable skill."
It also requires big bucks not just for the camera and lenses and large-format photo printers, but also for a powerful computer and special software. And it also requires great patience to learn and master the software.
Recently, an industry analyst who follows the digital camera market made the bold prediction that film camera sales would dwindle into insignificance by 2008. Digital cameras already outsell film cameras. Digital camera sales are growing by double- and even triple-digit percentages each year, while film camera sales are flat or declining. But will film cameras really disappear?
"I find it hard to believe that film will disappear," LoPinto said. "There is still a very, very large audience that just won't do that kind of stuff [digital imaging], and film continues to play important role where time is not a serious factor. I will say, however, that digital will continue to grow. As digital grows in advanced technology and versatility, and as price points fall, digital cameras will gather a bigger and bigger audience. Even the most staunch film users will eventually add digital to their shooting scenarios. Whether it's a compact digital camera or an SLR, it's going to happen."
Last edited:
Photobitstream
Reformed Audiophile
hakka26 said:
That statement makes no sense whatsoever. Time for you to quit digging.
I guess I'm wrong but I thought I learned that ASA ratings were associated with grain and as I said I don't know the equivalent in digital media maybe it's a factor in mp's or dpi. Your the "pro" so you tell me. Perhaps there is something else for you to pick at, your nose maybe, before you pick out one passage to refer. Reminds me of someone who comes in on the middle of a thread and offers nothing.Photobitstream said:
Photobitstream
Reformed Audiophile
ASA is ASA, doesn't matter if it is film or digital. So far every post you've made in this thread has included at least one major technical error. Rather than argue with a professional you should shut up and listen. Maybe you'll learn something.
you know what? You and the other bonehead offer nothing. Don't tell me to shut up. Did I not acknowledge that I was not in the the know on digital? Obviously you have trouble reading posts. In advertising it is referred to as "selective attention." Excuse but where did you two make any attempt to explain except to answer by blowing smoke out where the sun doesn't shine. Now you answer me this: aren't the silver crystals on ASA 400 film larger than those on ASA 100? Isn't this a factor of film sensitivity and grain? Now as there are no light sensitive crystals in digital media what is the equivalent? I have specs that silver bromide crystals never measure more than 1/5000th of a miilimeter. Of course you "pros" already know this but waiting for you to describe the digital image in such terms has been a waste of time as you are busy referring to yourselves as "pros. I can't seem to recall any of your works displayed with Hockney, Adams, Avedon, etc.. If you want to point out a "major technical error" then do so and say why it is wrong other than it being your "pro" opinion. If you want to select passages to attack then tell your definition of ASA. You have made no attempt to answer a post as I have other than to say "you're wrong" or "this statement makes no sense..." And, then the other knothead jumps in to agree to shut up and listen. Listen to what? All that has been said is that I am wrong. To me you are incapable of answering without saying that you are a "pro" and that is all that needs to be said. Yeah right. So let's hear your definition of ASA as you seem to find my statement on this matter especially offensive. Use it as a starting point to showcase your "pro" knowledge.Photobitstream said:
Photobitstream
Reformed Audiophile
Hakka26, you remind me of myself 25 years ago. Intelligent, uneducated, and sure you know everything. Well, after making my living taking photos for almost three decades, and have processed more than 30,000 rolls and sheets of B&W film, I've learned a thing or two about what makes a good print. Now, if you're through attacking me, sit back and learn a thing or two.
ASA/ISO is a standard originally used to measure film's sensitivity to light, and later intentionally transferred to CCDs and CMOS sensor in digital cameras. This has absolutely nothing to do with megapixels. My old Canon EOS D30 (3MP) used the exact same ASA/ISO rating system for exposures as does the latest 16MP EOS 1Ds MKII.
I switched to digital largely for economic reasons (I was shooting 2,000 images per day), but discovered the quality surpassed what I was getting out of 35mm film, even when I took the time to drum scan the film. A 30MB drum scan of a 35mm slide obviously contains more information than a 9MB digital original, so how could I have been getting better results?
Easy. The digital original is a lot cleaner than even a good 35mm slide scanned on a $75k Tango drum scanner. The digital original has a far greater S/N ratio. No grain to degrade the image as you enlarge it. No emulsion to cloud the image as it prints. Colors remain vibrant even at extreme print sizes. When you enlarge 35mm color film past 11x14 via tradtional methods the colors start washing out. With B&W film, the grain gets ugly past 11x14, and the contrast lessens. Digital originals do not suffer these problems.
As with all things, there ain't no free lunch. Because a 6MP digital file contains less information than a drum scanned 35mm original you have to be careful how you enlarge the image. Changing the image size in PhotoShop works well enough for non-critical use, but can introduce visible artifacts. I've found that changing the image size incrementally, 10 percent at a time, works much better than ging straight from 3072x2048 pixels to 9000x6000 pixels. Note this is a 3x enlargement to get the digital file from 6.8x10 inches to 20x30 inches (printing at 300 dpi). An 8x12 print from 35mm film is an 8x enlargement.
The trick to making excellent digital enlrgements is to go easy on sharpening. Sharpening should always be the last thing you do before printing, and it is much better to sharpen too little than too much. I've seen many digital prints ruined their unjudicious sharpening.
Then there are the other problems associated with film. Where do you get your film processed? If you use a cheap local lab you will regret it eventually. I've seen roller marks on emulsion, boogers from contaminated chemistry, stains from exhausted chemistry, and all manner of vile crap on my film over the years. I started a B&W lab in Sunnyvale, CA, because I could not find anyone who could process my film to my standards. The worst problem I've had with digital is needing to clean my cameras' sensors occassionally.
The bottom line is I can pull killer 20x30 prints out of my humble Canon EOS 10D. I've never seen a 20x30 print from a 35mm original that impressed me.
ASA/ISO is a standard originally used to measure film's sensitivity to light, and later intentionally transferred to CCDs and CMOS sensor in digital cameras. This has absolutely nothing to do with megapixels. My old Canon EOS D30 (3MP) used the exact same ASA/ISO rating system for exposures as does the latest 16MP EOS 1Ds MKII.
I switched to digital largely for economic reasons (I was shooting 2,000 images per day), but discovered the quality surpassed what I was getting out of 35mm film, even when I took the time to drum scan the film. A 30MB drum scan of a 35mm slide obviously contains more information than a 9MB digital original, so how could I have been getting better results?
Easy. The digital original is a lot cleaner than even a good 35mm slide scanned on a $75k Tango drum scanner. The digital original has a far greater S/N ratio. No grain to degrade the image as you enlarge it. No emulsion to cloud the image as it prints. Colors remain vibrant even at extreme print sizes. When you enlarge 35mm color film past 11x14 via tradtional methods the colors start washing out. With B&W film, the grain gets ugly past 11x14, and the contrast lessens. Digital originals do not suffer these problems.
As with all things, there ain't no free lunch. Because a 6MP digital file contains less information than a drum scanned 35mm original you have to be careful how you enlarge the image. Changing the image size in PhotoShop works well enough for non-critical use, but can introduce visible artifacts. I've found that changing the image size incrementally, 10 percent at a time, works much better than ging straight from 3072x2048 pixels to 9000x6000 pixels. Note this is a 3x enlargement to get the digital file from 6.8x10 inches to 20x30 inches (printing at 300 dpi). An 8x12 print from 35mm film is an 8x enlargement.
The trick to making excellent digital enlrgements is to go easy on sharpening. Sharpening should always be the last thing you do before printing, and it is much better to sharpen too little than too much. I've seen many digital prints ruined their unjudicious sharpening.
Then there are the other problems associated with film. Where do you get your film processed? If you use a cheap local lab you will regret it eventually. I've seen roller marks on emulsion, boogers from contaminated chemistry, stains from exhausted chemistry, and all manner of vile crap on my film over the years. I started a B&W lab in Sunnyvale, CA, because I could not find anyone who could process my film to my standards. The worst problem I've had with digital is needing to clean my cameras' sensors occassionally.
The bottom line is I can pull killer 20x30 prints out of my humble Canon EOS 10D. I've never seen a 20x30 print from a 35mm original that impressed me.