DPR Forum

Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. Whether it is Medium Format, fullframe, APS-C, MFT or smaller formats. Digital or film. DPRF is a forum for everybody and for every format.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!

Digital v Film again

Oh, Clive...wet print next to a digital print...I agree with you...if you can find a good wet lab these days. Even the big ones around our Detroit metro area (which serves Car shooters) are in serious decline. The good lab techs are going the way of the Dodo, and are being replaced by kids who wouldn't know a great print if it bit them on the ass.

Just awhile ago I shot a wedding using my 503Cw instead of the digital Back on the Contax 645...and I hunted down a good lab guy to make a few 16X20 wet prints. I lost a lot of profit, but the prints were spectacular!!! My clients (who are well respected Art Directors) didn't know the difference. But I did it for myself.

I guess we're in a time of transition...where traditional printing is in decline for lack of practioners, while digital printing isn't quite there yet.
 
I too think that Marc is overstating his case by not being in touch with the grass roots. This professional slice of the photographic population does not represent 1% of the whole. How many photographers do you still see wielding AE1’s or ME-Supers? They have resisted autofocus and matrix metering and will not be throwing $900 at a digital camera. Look at the submissions to photo magazines – at least 80% film captured. 99% if you take out the pro’s who are being paid to peddle the digital message. The amateur and hobby photographers are still not convinced of the benefits of digital. They are the ones who will change to digital once the image quality is right and they are the ones who will move the market. Yes, there are people who will rush straight out and buy whatever new product becomes available and replace it whenever a newer, faster or more shiny model is brought out. They are also a tiny but welcome minority as they finance future development.

Film sales being in decline does not necessarily mean that the majority of people are switching to digital. The decline in film may be down to people simply not taking photographs and reflect the UK trend of camera clubs struggling to retain their membership numbers. A few years ago APS sales overtook 35mm and some people predicted the end for film as we know it. Actually what happened is that the low end of the market was influenced by marketing hype and the sheep who were replacing their pocket cameras were persuaded to invest in the APS market. It did not affect SLR sales one bit. The Kodak ex&le is flawed. Loans are payable over a long time period and the reduction in their credit rating is a reflection on the future not the present, and no one argues that digital is not the future.

Today some pro’s are investing in digital simply because it represents a saving in time or money. They can only do this if their market will allow them to hence my point about the decline of the photographic print that is echoed elsewhere. How many landscape specialists have converted to digital? If they had then we could be sure that their respective manufacturers would be trumpeting the fact in adverts everywhere. I only know of two UK pro's who have converted to digital and both are in receipt of free cameras.

How many wedding pro’s show their clients the difference digitally captured and film derived images as a matter of course to allow them to choose which they prefer? Not one I bet. The clients are lead by the nose as the APS buyers were and not informed of their options in having superior film images which can also be produced on CD for a small price in comparison to the cost of the wedding.

Film libraries will only buy good quality images and at present the 6Mp digital camera does not cut the mustard. Ostensibly a 6Mp camera should be able to output enough pixels to fill a 12” x 8” print at the current labs 250 dpi quality. To find out why they fail we must read between the lines of the marketing hype. When Sigma brought out their Forevon CCD they claimed an equivalent of 9Mp output from a 3Mp sensor. No one challenged that so by default all those 6Mp cameras including the ND were actually 2Mp cameras all along. This is based on the premise that each of their pixels only records 1/3 of the spectrum meaning that each group of three is lumped together to give one larger dot or splodge of the correct colour. When you see the dingy soft digital images reproduced in magazines even at a crude 150 dpi the difference between scanned film images and digitally captured images is plainly obvious hence the photo libraries reluctance to accept these files.

(The ND is in my opinion further handicapped by having a full size CCD meaning its 6Mp ppi at the sensor is roughly equivalent to a 4Mp camera).
 
Not in touch with grass roots. Hmmm. Maybe where you live camera stores are thriving. Here they are dying off quickly and being replaced by mass merchandisers. Step into Best Buy or any major outlet and count the SLRs available. You won't need but one hand.
But you'll need all your fingers and toes to count the digital choices. Count the pages of SLR offerings in the B&H insert. Then count the digital pages. Count the magazines devoted to digital that weren't even there a year ago. Now count the ones devoted to traditional photography. That is grass roots observations, not some narrow personal experience fueled by your own agenda.

BTW, where did you get the 1% figure for professional photography...which is a multi billion dollar industry? (Source "Ad Age" data base) Can you quote a credible source for the 1%? Or did you just make it up for the sake of supporting your argument?

Also, please be so good as to explain the NEW math that makes a 6 meg camera 4 meg because of the size of the sensor.

I accept that you may never accept any argument in a discussion unless it agrees with yours. I happen to agree with many of your quality points concerning film but I accept the fact that digital is here and it ain't APS as you would like to infer. I embrace it now so that I can master it and use every new innovation as it comes forward.
 
OK. So the 1% is an estimation – probably a vast over estimation unless someone can show that for every hundred amateur photographers there is a pro’. But, your own first paragraph would seem to discount that.

Our specialist retail outlets seem to be doing fine. Jessop’s is our biggest retailer and is in an expansive mood. There are also new online sellers also providing pages and pages of 35mm and MF gear.

If you take a full size sensor and spread 6 million pixels across it the number of pixels per square inch would equate to that of a sensor of two – thirds the size i.e the ‘normal sized CCD’ in most digital cameras and covered by 4 million pixels. The ppi of the sensor is in my humble opinion just as important as the final image in reflecting the true image quality.

APS was used as an ex&le of marketing hype over common sense which is rather similar to that we are experiencing in the digital debate.
 
Mike Nunan - thank you for stepping in and saying what I was thinking. I still prefer and find more detail can be had from a drum scan of an image that I use for my clients; things like brochures, presentation folders, glossy ads that are viewed in hand at reading distance - where you see all the quality (or lack of quality) of an image. I have used digitally produced images from the high end; from a Better Light and a Sinar view camera, and I still prefer and find the drum scan of an equivalent sized neg to come out on top. That is MY preference and my perogative. My clients pay me to make that choice, and I do. Do I have to use digitally created images (not talking film scans - but digital backs and digital SLRs)? Sometimes, but I don't like them. They are only adequate in my opinion. I'm not tell you all what to do - far from it - if you think your digital is the cat's meow then go for it and quit telling me and the rest of the people that we must switch. I like where I am until I see something that can match a drum scan. As for using a billboard as an ex&le of a quality indicator, come on now, the resolution used to produce a billboard is a different creature entirely. There is much twiddling with the image to produce such an image - if you look at it up close you won't even know what you're seeing. I don't think it is a good indicator of showing how good of quality digital photography can produce - you can make a billboard out of a good profession 35mm slide too and no one will know the difference as they speed past on the highway. -Lynn
 
Lynn and all, I'm not sure where the notion came from that anyone one was being TOLD they should be using digital. The opposite has been true for most of these discussions.
Those who prefer digital are being told their choice is an inferior one to film...including the opinion in your post above (although done kindly).

Fact is, I have no idea as to your skill in shooting and processing digital images. And can see quite easily a person with years of film experience sticking with what they know.

Everyone is free to do as they wish, shoot what they wish how they wish. I have had the experience with a number of professional photographers on actual shoots for a wide range of clients using digital capture that was shot increadibly well and processed so well that our print buyer/Production manager was astounded. In essence, I am not a photographer offering a personal opinion, but an Ad agency client explaining that we see no difference, and to use film is a waste of time and money. Which in this economy, is not a good thing.

All this reminds me when computers hit the Art Director's desks and the rooted in guys scoffed right up until they became unemployed.

I will bow out now, for you feel good about where you are and there is little more to say on my part anyway. Besides, I have to go do
some bid specs for a TV commercial...which, ironically, I insist be shot on film : -)
 
Clive, the only thing that matters is the total number of pixels in the =20=

final image. The size or resolution of the sensor isn't important in =20 itself, only in how it relates to the physical size of the camera and =20=

lens. If you put a giant sensor in a view camera that had the same =20 number of pixels as a small one in a DSLR, you'd get the same result =20 (lenses, etc. being equal). Think of it being a sheet of graph paper, =20=

and you're filling in the same number of little squares - it doesn't =20 matter how how big the squares are, as long as there is the same number =20=

of them - the end result is always a mosaic of the same number of =20 squares in the same pattern. The fact that the Contax N Digital has its =20=

sensor spread over a slightly larger area is actually a very slight =20 advantage, compared to a similar 35mm-sized camera - a smaller sensor =20=

with the same number of pixels would essentially be cropping into and =20=

blowing up the center area of the lens slightly.

The N Digital also has a huge advantage because it doesn't crop off the =20=

ends of the image area - most other DSLRs effectively give each of your =20=

lenses a slightly longer focal length.

There has been a lot of talk about 250 dpi images for inkjet prints, =20 but 300 dpi is standard for commercial publishing. Images from DSLRs =20 used larger than about 8 x 10 or so start to run into problems - there =20=

are not enough original pixels in the image to go larger. This is true =20=

even if you're using a full-frame image. If you crop, the problem is =20 worse because you're cutting off pixels and lowering the resolution of =20=

the image at its finished size, but you still need to have 300 dpi in =20=

order for the color separator/magazine/etc. to accept your file.

You need to increase the resolution in some artificial way, perhaps =20 using one of the fractal-based utilities, but you're not adding real =20 data to the file. Stock photo agencies require film originals because =20=

you can scan them at resolutions high enough to print at larger sizes. =20=

As I had pointed out earlier, even a consumer-type scanner doing a 4000 =20=

dpi scan of a slide gives you almost 4 times as many pixels as the N =20 Digital does.

It's been my experience that clients will always underestimate how they =20=

will use a photo. All they see is their immediate need. Part of the =20 reason I still shoot on film, exclusively, is because this always gives =20=

me the option of getting bigger files if I ever need them. The client =20=

who insisted that they only use a photo for a tiny magazine ad will =20 come back six months later and want to use the same photo 8 feet tall =20=

on a trade show display - I can always re-scan the slide if this =20 happens.

Marc, your comments have been extremely interesting. However, several =20=

ad agencies that I've worked with enthusiastically embraced digital at =20=

first, but are now backing off and returning to film. I myself feel the =20=

pull of the tremendous convenience that digital would offer, as well as =20=

quick turnarounds (no waiting for processing! no scanning! no dust!) =20 and the ability to have the client view and approve your images =20 on-screen during a shoot. It would also be much cheaper in the long run =20=

- I buy and pay for the processing of 200-300 rolls of film in a year =20=

(which is a very modest number compared to what a lot of other =20 photographers shoot), but this would pay for an N Digital pretty =20 quickly.

A few clients have been surprised that I shoot on film, since I'm also =20=

an illustrator and graphic designer who's been doing computer graphics =20=

since the 1970s. Most of my professional photography is for projects =20 that I'm also the graphic designer for, and I've been involved in =20 digital prepress work since the very early days in the late 1980s and =20=

early 1990s. Until I switched to Macs in about 1987, I was working on =20=

computer graphics systems that cost a half million dollars per =20 workstation. I started using Photoshop with version 1 in about 1991. =20 So, people who know my background know I'm hardly a Luddite. Right now, =20=

I believe that I can provide a better file by shooting on film, and =20 will have more flexibility with how the image is used in the future =20 since I can always re-scan it again later. Since I seldom work with =20 files smaller than about 50 MB, the output of a DSLR seems pathetically =20=

small to me.

However, I'm not completely close-minded about this, and I do feel the =20=

seductive pull of digital, as I mentioned above. I have been surprised =20=

at some large photo reproductions that I know came from DSLRs - for the =20=

small resolutions of the original files, I'm astounded at the quality.

In the end, few clients/publications really care where the original =20 file came from, as long as they have a good, printable digital file as =20=

the finished product.

Another thing is that I save all my outtakes from a shoot - this means =20=

simply keeping all the slides. With digital, I think there would be a =20=

tendency to throw away all but one or two "keeper" shots from a shoot. =20=

I am surprised how often I have been able to find an image I need by =20 looking at unused shots that did not suit my client's immediate need at =20=

the time, but were still perfectly good shots. This is especially true =20=

with people shots - you'll often find slightly different poses or =20 expressions that you didn't use before. I also tend to shoot 'what the =20=

hell' shots if I'm on location and see something I feel the client =20 might want in the future, even if they have no interest in it at the =20 time. As I mentioned, many clients are so focused on their immediate =20 needs and don't see the possible uses of their images in the future. I =20=

figure as long as I've dragged myself and my gear there and set up, it =20=

takes little effort to do a few more shots.

Marc, I don't understand this comment: "NO ONE scans film to sizes of =20=

the actual application as it would cost a fortune per image and take =20 forever." I always make a scan at the resolution I need for a specific =20=

use of a transparency, and I don't understand what else would make =20 sense - perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you're saying here?

- Paul
 
Lynn, Clive, Marc,

I must say I enjoyed the discussion and cross exchange regarding film vs digital. I feel that all three of you clearly expressed your points of view and why. In each case, your arguments were persuasive but diverse. I think that I am no closer to the answer. I still do not know the right answer to life's great truths and that controversy predates the film v digital debate --- by at least a few thousand years.

Film and Digital -- another one of life's mysteries - no simple or right answer at this time.

I have even a tougher problem - I live in California. Should I vote for or against recalling the governor? And which of the 135 governor candidates should I vote for?

Howard
 
To all involved in this discussion,

Digital is rapidly taking over the volume segment as well as the professional market. No doubt, just extrapolate the current developments, the question is when not if. And I own both manual and AF film, point and shoot film and digital point and shoot. I have made the comparison and still like film better. Probably because this is how I learned to look at a representation of our real world on paper/slide rather than the output of a printer or computer. But the quality of digital in all aspects of the food chain from "the scene/subject" to captured image/memory is rapidly improving and so is our rating of the kind of output from digital. But that is not my point.
If only one actually had a real choice between digital and film.
My hobby is shooting birds and among other lenses from this brand I own 3 large telelenses from Minolta (AF300/2.8, AF4.5/400mm and AF 4/600mm). All in all a capital investment (new price of all three is about 20000 Euro/US$) equivalent to the value of a car.
Personally I think a digital camera body with features as those of the high end Nikon/Canon would greatly benefit me. In shooting birds (or other nature pictures for that matter) one has few chances to make THE shot and knowing whether the pictures taken are good or not right at the scene is actually indispensable. In addition the smaller size sensors in some of the DSLR's would also make my lenses longer tele's, giving me a better chance to approach the subject without chasing it away or disturbing it, ruining the "natural" impression of the picture.
But if only I had a choice. Minolta is concentrating on the point and shoot segment, nothing in the DSLR. And nothing to come soon as they keep on telling me. And in case they will I fear they will follow the initiative from Olympus, so no retrofit to my lenses. I am likely to be on a dead end in this respect.
So quite likely the only option I have is to abandon Minolta and buy myself a whole stack of new lenses from Canon or Nikon, Zeiss/Contax or very recently Olympus. Not a real choice yet, but definitely some years down the road digital for my will become a default rather than a choice.
Or . . . is there a way of connecting a Nikon or Canon body to a Minolta lens (if needed with loss of functions such a AF and automatic exposure measurement)?
Peter
 
Points taken Paul. (I guess I wasn't done).

To answer some of the questions:
My Kodak ProBack produces 16Meg RAW files and when processed through the Kodak Photo Desk software delivers a 94 Meg Tiff file. But before processing anything, we immediately burn a CD-ROM (or DVD with big jobs) of the entire RAW file shoot. This gives us the option of returning to the "Digital Negative Archive" should a client request come in later as you indicated. We do not throw away unused shots. If we are Art Directing a catalog job with critical fabric and the like, we go to our digital photographer who uses a 16 pass scanning back that produces up to 600meg files. Now, the newer full frame 22 meg. 645 single-shot backs will produce files well over 100 meg from the RAW files. There are few commercial printed jobs requiring more than that, and to do more is to waste money on scanning for mass printing jobs. Besides, once you start adding the layers of type and logos, the file size becomes to massive for the Art Directors Macs to handle in a timely manner.

As of late, none of our paying clients care if we want to use film, but none of them will pay for the scanning any longer (which can run into multi-thousands of dollars per job, and take a long time). Budgets for even the biggest national food client we handle are tight. While I agree that scans of say a RZ 6X7 tranparency are really great, getting them can be not so great. We've had scans come back with grain the size of golf balls. Related to that is how wet prints that look so good aren't necessarily due to razor sharp resolution, enlargers diffuse the light a bit so you do not see the grain like you do with super high res scans.

Using digital capture, we face none of those problems, including not having to spot-knock dust from a scanned image which also cost money and time.

The scanning to size comment was related to another posters comment. You scan based on the final size of the printed piece and the resolution printing is capable of reproducing...which is different from different printing methods. But there is a point of dimminishing returns. The last job we did to reproduce 4'X6' in branch posters for a Credit Union was done using RGB photographic process for reproduction. They were shot on the Kodak back, and featured people as well as type which was added in PS layers. The printer told us to provide only 150-200 meg files of the entire poster. The results were spectacular and the client loved them so much they ordered copies for every branch.

It's just business.
 
Back
Top