The quality out of D800 is below 35mm film.

[STM]

Re: The quality out of D800 i is below 35mm film.

Film has a whole different "feel" and charm to it that digital just simply cannot capture and I doubt it ever will. I have no objections whatsoever to grain, it is one of the things that give film its charm. Just the mere mention of the word grain makes some people cringe. And absolute resolving power does nt amount to a hill of beans, at least not to me. Digital looks very “plastic” to me. And most digital cameras cannot match film in its range of latitudes, especially in black and white. But digital does have its advantages over film. You can switch “iso” at will and of course you get instant feedback on how the image looks. It is also essentially “free” compared to film. The price of flashcards is miniscule compared to the cost of the same number of film images plus processing costs.

Still, I would rather pick up my Hasselblad and use it rather than any of my 35mm or digital cameras . It leaves them all far behind.




'

 

[Nathan Lanni]

Re: The quality out of D800 i is below 35mm film.

Not that I agree with the author of that article, the 1st paragraph correct or not sums up his entire argument,

"This article is not about saying one medium is "better" than another, generally, but here's my reasoning. Given the incessant stream of "film is dead" articles that seem to keep clogging the Internet, there has to be some counterbalance. Rumors and hype are jeopardizing the possibility that future generations will be able to enjoy film photography. That would be an art tragedy of epic proportions.

So he goes on a diatribe to justify his premise, which is fruitless given the directions film and digital are going. Having shot film many years ago, and I was certainly no expert, but I can say that digital is far more flexible and capable (for me at least) than film could ever dream of.

It's same argument (some) people have with digital stereo amplifiers vs analog (vacuum tube) stereo amplifiers. Back in the day when my sense of hearing was suffiencent to sense the difference, friends had these systems and I enjoyed listening to tube amplifiers vs a digital amp. If one looks at sound waves on a oscilloscope you can see that digital amps square off the wave whereas the analog amp allows all the subtle nuances to come forth. So the question are: 1) do I have enough money to acquire equipment for amps, speakers, turntables, etc. (back in the day the amps alone: $20,000+ USD) - no I don't. 2) Is the sound environment adequate - no it's near impossible find a properly designed room. 3) Again, as mentioned, is my hearing adequate to justify all that - no. So the bottom line is it's an extreme endeavor to try an capture the difference and in the end I can't even tell the difference anymore.

Same thing with digital vs film. There may (emphasis on "may") be some extreme subtle difference but does one want to build a darkroom, chemicals, equipment, etc. to chase that possibility. Especially when (as mentioned by others here) digital camera + software are so extremely capable.

 

[crycocyon]

Re: The quality out of D800 i is below 35mm film.

Digital versus film photography - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Specifically...

A 36 mm x 24 mm frame of ISO 100-speed film was initially estimated to contain the equivalent of 20 million pixels,[SUP][6][/SUP] although this estimate was later revised to between 4 and 16 million pixels depending on the type of film used.[SUP][7][/SUP] Many professional-quality film cameras use medium format or large format films. Because of the size of the imaging area, these can record higher resolution images than current top-of-the-range digital cameras. A medium format film image can record an equivalent of approximately 50 megapixels, while large format films can record around 200 megapixels (4 × 5 inch) which equates to around 800 megapixels on the largest common film format, 8 × 10 inches, without accounting for lens sharpness.[SUP][8][/SUP] Medium format digital provides from 39 to 80 megapixels.

 

[aroy]

Re: The quality out of D800 i is below 35mm film.

We must realise two things
. Film has a non linear response. At two end - highlights and the shadows the response tends towards logarithmic
. Digital has a linear response.

What this means is that once you go beyond the two ends of intensity in digital - highlights at one end and noise at the other end, the data is lost. In contrast in film the response is such that intensity is compressed non linearly at two ends so that the transitions are soft.

In spite of this the film has much less DR than digital. Where film scores is that what ever DR it has is visible ble in the print/slide, while in digital it is hidden in the data.

What can be done (and is being done) is to take advantage of the high DR - 13+EV for D3300 and 14+ for D600/800 and apply response curves, so that the full dynamic range is visible. As the computer screen and prints rarely go beyond 7EV in DR, the trick is to use non linear curves to fit most of the 12-14EV sensor data into 7EV or so of the output media.

This is what various software which promise to give you "Film Look" do. DXO film pack is just one of them that comes to my mind.
Features | www.dxo.com

Nikon has tried to address this with their "Active D lighting" both in camera and in their post processing software.

In short if processed properly, whether in camera or in post, digital images need not look harsh and "plasticky", but mimic the film in the look.

 

[Scott Murray]

Re: The quality out of D800 i is below 35mm film.

Interesting read, not sure if its meaningful and I doubt I will lose sleep over it

 

[aroy]

Re: The quality out of D800 i is below 35mm film.

For those who are interested in film response curves, please read this

Clarkvision: Dynamic Range of an Image
Here is the curve for quick reference.

To get that film look, you have to transform the linear digital data from the sensor to match the film curve. In Kodak and Fuji sites you will get all the intensity and spectral response curves for all their film products.

 

[Scott Murray]

Re: The quality out of D800 i is below 35mm film.

For those who are interested in film response curves, please read this

Clarkvision: Dynamic Range of an Image
Here is the curve for quick reference.

To get that film look, you have to transform the linear digital data from the sensor to match the film curve. In Kodak and Fuji sites you will get all the intensity and spectral response curves for all their film products.

You may want to remove that image ;-)

 

[LeicaR9]

Re: The quality out of D800 i is below 35mm film.

In the Clarkvision: Dynamic Range of an Image
the used film scanner is low quality 12 bits per channel, Dmax of 3.4
Also it scans fast ~ 2 minutes.

In comparison on good quality scanner it's gonna take 30 minutes for one 35mm frame.
See the shadow area on film under light table, you see all the data is there even in shadows.

 

[Horoscope Fish]

Re: The quality out of D800 i is below 35mm film.

Oh yeah... I remember shooting film. It's quaint. If that's your thing, have at it; I will applaud you (from afar).

Interesting read, not sure if its meaningful and I doubt I will lose sleep over it.

So very much this: ^^^ Sleeping reeeeally well over here, too...

....

 

[Marcel]

Re: The quality out of D800 i is below 35mm film.

In the Clarkvision: Dynamic Range of an Image
the used film scanner is low quality 12 bits per channel, Dmax of 3.4
Also it scans fast ~ 2 minutes.

In comparison on good quality scanner it's gonna take 30 minutes for one 35mm frame.
See the shadow area on film under light table, you see all the data is there even in shadows.

You can spend your money wherever you want, but PLEASE, stop the preaching and trolling. As I stated before, I think you are trolling in the wrong forum.

 

[aroy]

Re: The quality out of D800 i is below 35mm film.

Shooting film today has a lot of disadvantage, which unless you have clients who want it is pointless.
- Film stock is not available easily. Time was when you could buy film at every corner, now you have to hunt for a retailer
- Film processing as a business is no longer viable. So all the small and medium labs have closed. Only a few large regional labs are in business and their turn around time is long. Film shooting and processing has moved away from the mass market to specialist market and so have the costs. This is the scenario in urban India. In small towns you still have mini labs (bought at rock bottom prices) operating.
- With digital you can post process to get exactly what you want, and if you/client does not like, you can start all over again. With film you have to get it right the first time, any goof up and the shot is gone.

There is still a lot of film being shot, at least in India, but the majority of the users are those who cannot afford a digital camera. For these extremely casual photographer who wants good prints of a holiday/celebration, film is still economical as they will be shooting at the most two rolls a year. For most of them a cell phone is all they need to shoot.

 

[480sparky]

Re: The quality out of D800 i is below 35mm film.

Go to any car show, and you'll see a lot of people who drive old cars.

Talk to any audiophile, and you'll find someone who still uses tubes and reel-to-reel tapes in their gear.

Film isn't dead. It's just being ignored by those who have allowed themselves to be mass-marketed to by the digital industry.

 

[Scott Murray]

Re: The quality out of D800 i is below 35mm film.

I can still buy film in the supermarket

 

[Dave_W]

Re: The quality out of D800 i is below 35mm film.

I know of several photographers who have gone back to film, medium format to be exact. Before digital, MF was beyond the financial reach of most people. But thanks to the digital boom, MF is very much affordable.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

 

[TedG954]

Re: The quality out of D800 i is below 35mm film.

....... those who have allowed themselves to be mass-marketed to by the digital industry.

That's me. Digital is simpler in every sense of the word. I can take 1000 photographs to find that one perfect shot and have no concern about film costs, as well as loading and unloading. I used to process film at home. I no longer have the space. With digital, I can manipulate a photo dozens of ways in a matter of minutes. And, there are programs to give digital a film appearance. I'll take digital over film anyday.

 

[480sparky]

Re: The quality out of D800 i is below 35mm film.

I know of several photographers who have gone back to film, medium format to be exact. Before digital, MF was beyond the financial reach of most people. But thanks to the digital boom, MF is very much affordable.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

I recently returned to film with two cameras: I finally dug out my dad's old (1962) Tenax Automatic, which still works. I bought a Nikon FM2n strictly so I can shoot 35mm film. I also maintain a stable of D-series lenses to use on it.

I've also returned to developing B&W film. It's fun as he11 to drop a roll in, go out and shoot, then spend the evening developing.

 

[Horoscope Fish]

Re: The quality out of D800 i is below 35mm film.

That's me. Digital is simpler in every sense of the word. I can take 1000 photographs to find that one perfect shot and have no concern about film costs, as well as loading and unloading. I used to process film at home. I no longer have the space. With digital, I can manipulate a photo dozens of ways in a matter of minutes. And, there are programs to give digital a film appearance. I'll take digital over film anyday.

I guess I've been suckered in as well. Gosh, I sure miss all those smelly, expensive chemicals. Not too mention spending hours working in a hot, stuffy dark room fumbling with film rolls and processing negatives... Just so I could come back later and spend MORE time in a hot, stuffy darkroom working behind the enlarger burning, dodging and cropping so I could then go work with still other smelly chemicals to get prints made. And this was for black and white mind you. What that about color prints? Ha... Yeah. I'm all eager as f--k to go back to the days of sending my film out to a bunch of ill-trained (assuming any training at all) lab monkeys to process my negatives and take wild stabs at cropping my prints.

Wow. Those were good times! I can't believe what a fool I've been...

....

 

[Nathan Lanni]

Re: The quality out of D800 i is below 35mm film.

Go to any car show, and you'll see a lot of people who drive old cars.

Talk to any audiophile, and you'll find someone who still uses tubes and reel-to-reel tapes in their gear.

Film isn't dead. It's just being ignored by those who have allowed themselves to be mass-marketed to by the digital industry.

True, except I don't agree that we are ignoring film.

My thoughts about technology in general through time is people quickly adapt to the use of technology whenever and however they can afford it and it is practical. The bottom line for 99 percent of people, again IMO, is technology has to available, practicable and affordable. Better yet - make it really easy.

Old cars - I can speak to that - I own 4 clunkers (oops, vintage automobiles) 1 - 1965 Ford, 2 mid-1970's AMC's and 1 late-1980's Chevy. I maintain the Chevy as a daily driver for my use and my kid's use for their trips back and forth to school. However, we just bought them a new car because it will be safer with better brakes, handling, crash testing, etc., and better fuel mileage. Plus - a big one here - it will be more reliable and has a warranty. And as a person who drove the 1965 Ford to work daily, it's a fact that it almost killed me (quite literally) one day when it died on the freeway during a downpour, I can say I am very committed to my old cars and the technologies of that era, but there are limits. Plus, these days most people that can afford to restore old cars do "restomods". It's a near perfect period factory restoration but they install newer braking systems, modern steering columns (safer) and electrical systems, new air conditioning systems, better radiators, etc. So it uses vintage sheet metal for appearance sake but underneath it's all new tek. As a purest at heart, I have a little problem with this but then I have to say what good is it to have an old car that you can't drive because it might kill you.

I used to be an audiophile, and just the other day I was reading up on current high end LP turntable offerings and high fidelity stylus cartridge technology. I'd love to have a purely analog system, but I wrestle with the costs vs acoustics vs the subtlety of the string section getting lost with the constant ear ringing. Oh well, it's a tough getting old.

I was at the 65th Grand Roadster show back in January this year. Had a great time looking at cars, talking w/ people, meeting other photographers - some professionals getting a look at what they are doing, plus I met an old(er) guy with an old 35mm film camera. It was great talking with him. He carried 4 film canisters so a possibility of 96 shots with 24 exposures each roll. But his concern was how his shots were going to turn out - poor lighting, no tripod, etc., but he wouldn't know until he got film developed in a couple of weeks. Plus he had to make every shot count. On the other I was able to take more shots, not necessarily better, and I wasn't able to use my tripod, but I was able to make adjustments as i went along, plus in poor lighting my ISO was able to do a little better than his 400 ASA film. So as a far as film is concerned, in IMHO, I believe those people that can afford it, know how to use it, and can truly appriciate the subtlety of the art can and will do it. But for me, digital technology - DSLR + Lightroom - allows me focus on making better images.

FWIW

 

[480sparky]

Re: The quality out of D800 i is below 35mm film.

......... He carried 4 film canisters so a possibility of 96 shots with 24 exposures each roll. But his concern was how his shots were going to turn out - poor lighting, no tripod, etc., but he wouldn't know until he got film developed in a couple of weeks. Plus he had to make every shot count. On the other I was able to take more shots, not necessarily better, and I wasn't able to use my tripod, but I was able to make adjustments as i went along, plus in poor lighting my ISO was able to do a little better than his 400 ASA film. ..........

Part of the reason I shoot film is to sharpen my skill set. Not being able to chimp, and having a limited number of frames to take, really hones those skills.

It's an exercise many can do, even with digital. Turn off your monitor. Turn off the autofocus and VR. Set the ISO to just one choice. Limit yourself to 24 or 36 images. WB to Daylight. Turn the mode dial to M. Then go out and shoot.

You'll be surprised what you can learn.

 

[T-Man]

Re: The quality out of D800 i is below 35mm film.

I'm pretty new to photography, so my experience with film is limited to Kodak point and shoot cameras as a kid, not SLR film cameras.
I'm sure there's perhaps some advantage to film over digital, since my life experience tells me that there's usually some disadvantage(s), however slight, that go along with every set of advantages with any new technologies.

However, I've seen no shortage of very high quality film images, and my relatively unsophisticated eye tells me that I still prefer the IQ of good, well-processed digital images. The bottom line is a good image is a good image with either technology. Since the advantages to digital are multiple and obvious in terms of creative flexibility, user-friendliness, cost, convenience, and availability, to name a few, I personally don't see how anyone would think film is a better mousetrap. Still, I can appreciate the "purist" appeal of the challenge and satisfaction of doing things the old-fashioned way... as long as you can still actually get film.

If I were buying new camera gear today, I wouldn't even think about purposely choosing a film camera, for the same reason I no longer own an 8-track tape player. But, to each his own.