Difference between 35mm SLR and Digital Slr

OK so there are the obvious answers like one storing image on film, other on memory card. But what I'm really asking is what is the difference that results in that different quality of image. With film the light reacts on the film and you have a precise print of what you had on the viewer. But what is it that the digital slr reacts on?

I'm having a hard time trying to explain to friends why I didn't get a dslr, they don't seem to grasp the magic of film...

Also if this is in the wrong thread topic base thingy then tell me to correct it and I will (dsl = off topic?).

Cheers,

Sheebay

Once you get even a rudimentary grip on optically printing your images, make an inkspit print and a a FB(fibre based) sillver gelatin print from a decent b/w neg and show them.

No more will need to be said.

The differences (not: advantages) between digital and film have sparked endless discussions already. Just use the searchbar

Sheebay said:

I'm having a hard time trying to explain to friends why I didn't get a dslr, they don't seem to grasp the magic of film...

Click to expand...

I really think the magic (and it is magic) needs to be expressed in terms other than 'quality' which is totally subjective. Family members often ask me why I haven't 'gone' digi, I ask them why should I and I normally get some sort of imprecise idea based on this thing 'quality'. I tell them from a layman's point of view there's no practical difference so why waste money when my 15 year old camera functions perfectly. I then also add - by the way, how many cameras have you gone through in that time? No, I think the magic of film lies in the whole process from the matching of film to subject, through the processing and onto the printing. A completely unorthodox process that needs no computer - imagine that! That's the magic: getting away from that boring and ubiquitous machine that dominates our lives.

Millions words have been written (and wasted) on the subject. What I really think is that it's the PROCESS that matters to anybody. There is some degree of subjectivity in that, but one has to admit that handling wet paper has nothing to do with sitting in front of a computer. Personally, I'm not breaking my head about quality interms of resolution or whatever: maybe you could get similar results with a dslr, but who cares, when the process is so magic? It's something I have CRAFTED, cared about, I've seen it take shape in my hands. Little else matters to me.

Just a thought

Sheebay said:

With film the light reacts on the film and you have a precise print of what you had on the viewer. But what is it that the digital slr reacts on?

Click to expand...

Think of it as having a tiny light meter at every pixel position. When you press the shutter, every tiny meter reading is recorded and saved in a file.

I don't think I have answered your question.... but no one else has either!


Steve.

35mm film can be projected onto a movie screen, a DSLR photo can not, at least a DSLR that an amateur can afford.

If you are looking for a special look to a photo you put in the film that gives that look and shoot, with D you need to post process for hours to get a given look.

You can use filters with film, DSLR's don't really like filters because it messes with the white balance. Then again, DSLR's don't always white balance all that great to begin with, more time in post.

With a DSLR you need to spend more money on a computer and storage to keep photos safe, I just bought a 750+ slide case for $30 and I know that it will never crash and louse all my photos, I also won't need to upgrade to a faster case. If you want to go the sleeves in a binder route, you can store about 1000+ photos for about $15. That may sound pricey, but again these storage methods never crash or lockup and last years without failing. Plus you can add more storage cases when you run out of space, with D you need to get a bigger drive and move all your photos. Also when I add storage I don't have to move things around in a software package so I can find them again.

In two years they will come out with a new DSLR and you might want to upgrade. They make new films still, so even today film quality is getting better. I own cameras that are compatible with film stocks that have been made for over 100 years, will the JPEG last that long?

One major advantage that D has over film, and I would say it is the only advantage is this, you can shoot a D photo and get it to just about anyplace on the planet in about 30 seconds, film takes longer to do that. Then again, people will carry printed photos around to show off, and an envelope that says "PHOTOS DO NOT BEND" is one of the coolest things you can ever find in your mailbox.

photosensitivity is analog! in digital camera is (after exposure) transformed in digital information.

But the main difference is: Digital is incredibly boring! cameras are in most cases PSP´s (at least the affordable ones) and i have no patience to stand in a chair looking at a computer screen for hours!

Darkroom and alternative processes put me in a constant state of alert and amazement, it´s like a radical sport...

I love being able to answer the philosophy based questions above the fold - I would agree with brucemuir above. Once I got used to looking at well printed stuff, I found that digital things often had a "plastic" and "too perfect" look to them that I just find disagreeable when I personally think about art. Unfortunately I find myself speaking in analogy constantly in this area so here is one: I could purchase really expensive fake plants that look fantastic or actually grow the plants myself. Or another: I could program a machine to make carved table legs or carve them myself....In both cases the machine made items wll be perfect each time but, I think you will find this opinion common with most craftsman/artists. They lack the "soul" and individuality that hand working them creates and differentiates "art" from "product". I view photography the same way. A hardcore digital person my tell you that their work, in front of the computer is just as important and vital - and while I can't say they are wrong, I can't say that I am absolutely right either. There is a certain art all by itself in absolute "technical" perfection. Its just not for me. I could go on and on, as I think about this a lot, but will not bore the thread and think that the essential idea is already here.

What's the difference?

DSLRs have a lot of bells and whistles, but you cannot load a roll of film.

:w00t:

My wife just passed another piano grade and I was reading the feedback - difficult for me to hear in the music what the examiner has written but I got the sense that within the music you can hear the player. I use the analogy with musical friends and I compare it to Autotune. There's also a nice contrast between a friend's father who makes chairs by hand for a living and Ikea. On the one hand we have the idea that we can see the hand of the craftsman in the object, whereas on the other we have predictably, repeatability, consistency. Reminds me of a quote from photo.net:

Yes, I know, drum scan, photoshop, sharper, great color, consistency every time... ...where I come from....we call those posters.

Click to expand...

Yes, I know, drum scan, photoshop, sharper, great color, consistency every time... ...where I come from....we call those posters.

Ah, photonet, that gushing font of wisdom!

CGW said:

Yes, I know, drum scan, photoshop, sharper, great color, consistency every time... ...where I come from....we call those posters.

Ah, photonet, that gushing font of wisdom!

Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly.

This subject is OT for APUG. It might be a good discussion for DPUG though.