Which is better really? Digital or 35 mm Film???

[padlex]

I have been reading comments and writeups regarding which is better, 35 mm film or digital. Read about 5 discussions and I seem to have noticed that the writers are split. Some say digital is better, some say 35 mm film is better. So, I'm just wondering what thoughts do members of Bytephoto have on this subject?

[TampaDan]

Which is better? Acrylic paint or watercolor? ;-)

Or, for you writers out there, pen & ink, or a typewriter?

[padlex]

Hi Tampadan. I was thinking on the line that not all old stuffs are inferior to new ones. Also found some writeups of a photographer who studied difference between 35 mm film vs digital pictures. And a japanese brand film marketed as low ISO value actually matches 8-16 Mpixels of digital picture. So I was wondering if some bytephoto members also tried comparing film and digital pictures? Or maybe they have experiences of their own they can share for us to learn more of the differences of the two systems.

[TampaDan]

I know....I was just teasin'.

From what I've read, film offers a wider range of tonality...brighter areas that aren't blown out, and darker areas that still retain detail. And I've also read about the 12 - 16mp equivalent resolving power.
But most people agree that digital will meet or exceed 35mm quality shortly, and that's why most serious film photography is in large format. Digital has a ways to go before it can achieve that kind of depth and resolution.

From an aesthetic point of view, there is a subtle difference in color, tone, texture, etc. But 35mm can be manipulated with lenses, filters and varieties of film anyway. And of course, digital can be manipulated with software, so the differences are really a matter of the individual artist's style.

Sorta like: "Rembrandt or Picasso. Which one's better?"

[padlex]

I'll try to do some experiments on Fuji Velvia ISO 50 myself and see what happens. Just wondering what do the other members think on this? Thanks TampaDan for your inputs on this subject. I wish more members would post their thoughts on this as I think it will be interesting to know what others have experienced or what are their thoughts on this.

[ponder]

Lex,

I've shot at least 22GB worth of digital images since 2003 and I'm still of the mind that 35mm film cameras up to 8x10 view cameras still out perform my Canon 20D digital camera in both color, clarity, tonality and focus. I now have three different lenses for my digital DSLR 18-55mm USM, 17-40 USM L and 100mm macro USM. Even though the L lens is supposed to be one of the best lenses you can purchase, my Canon F1 (1979 vintage) 35mm camera with 100 mm macro out perfoms any of my digital equipment hands down.

In my time as a professional photographer I used 35mm, 6mm x 4.5mm, 4x5, 8x10 and 11x14 view cameras and I agree with TampaDan that it will take some more time before digital will catch up to 35mm and be affordable to most people.

When I shot 35mm, if I focused properly and exposed properly, I had a beautiful image. With digital I have to manipulate 90 percent of the images to sharpen them to a place where they should have been coming out of the camera.

That's my view and my 2 cents worth in answering your question.

Ponder

[padlex]

Hi Ponder! Just finished my experiments wit fuji Velvia and I must say I think they are better than the digital pictures I produce. Anyway, I think there is still more room for improvement of the film images. I just bought a Nikon FE and will try more shots using the Nikon with Nikon lenses. Let's see what happens.

[famjad21]

Hi Lex,

I’‚’‚…‚’‚…¾‚ve been taking pictures for a long time, since a time before built-in light meters. I’‚’‚…‚’‚…¾‚ve also worked long and hard in the darkroom doing B&W and color. Since playing with digital, I’‚’‚…‚’‚…¾‚ve found no reason to go back. For example, it took me 4 hours in a darkroom to get 1 or 2 good 8x10’‚’‚…‚’‚…¾‚s. No matter how careful I was about dust, after all was dry I started the retouching work to remove the spots.

I think silver based photography has the higher quality but the cost in time and money makes it unattractive to me. I’‚’‚…‚’‚…¾‚m not ready to get rid of my film cameras but I did give away my darkroom a few months ago.

Besides, it’‚’‚…‚’‚…¾‚s not up to us; the manufacturers are going to decide. The digital cameras and printers are getting better while the likes of Kodak are cutting back on silver based film and paper.

Silver will be left to the wealthy purists and we’‚’‚…‚’‚…¾‚ll have more time to make better images.

Frank

[padlex]

Hi famjad21. It's nice to hear your thoughts on this. As to the question of which is better my first observation is you tend to achieve good results with film. Maybe due to the fact that film and lenses and camera bodies for film was being used and developed for a long time. Technology might be in a stage where very good science now applies to the film media. However, for the digital based photographic equipment, I also noticed there are many advantages specially for the novice photographer. Because you can take a look at the images right after you take the picture and still have the chance for a reshot. Technology in the digital photography seems to be developing faster this time. Rumors of some big camera manufacturer stopping production of their point and shoot 135 mm format even looms. Anyway, for me digital photography has helped a lot in my understanding of the art and I also like the benefits of being able to look at the images I shoot right after taking them and having the time to correct them if necessary. I think for me I will use both formats. I learn from digital formats and introduce the knowledge I get from them to film formats. Which I find right now very interesting.

[ratcheer]

First off, I am no expert.

But, according to my readings, the best digital photos have already surpassed the technical quality of the best 35 mm photos and are beginning to strongly rival the quality of medium format film photography.

Tim

[padlex]

I agree too that some digital camera's now tend to rival film but, they are expensive at this time. Imagine one camera that has the same size of sensor as 35 mm film to cost over 4,000 dollars! That would be very expensive for me. But I think digital and film has subtle differences that makes them unique in their own and I think up to this time, either cannot have this uniqueness making them unique and useful for purposes. One will achieve the objective better than the other. Depending on what is desired by the photographer.

[jimox]

No doubt about it - film is best re image sharpness, colour etc.but I had to bracket a lot of 35mm shots,wait (and pay) for the processing when using colour or spend hours in the darkroom if b&w to get decent photos.Now I can take as many as I feel like,card permitting, discard the dross & work on the rest in Photoshop -cropping ,touching up,sharpening etc and on balance get more good shots with digital than I did with 35 mm.But I do miss the instant and more accurate focusing of my old SLR .