digital vs. film test on TV

lilserenity · Dec 12, 2008

Seeing as I'm not planning on creating posters to hang from any building at that size, and that I will continue to print at most between 6x4 to 8x10 and on the odd occasion 16x12; and that I enjoy my photos as do others without even having to refer to the process (we discuss the subject an mull over the memory); and finally the fact that I still cannot personally like the digital workflow and aesthetic in black and white photography -- I have no reason to change over to digital.

I have no doubts that the 35mm DSLRs would trump many 35mm film systems now, particularly if this was at ISO 400 at that size. But I'm never going to print that big. Ever. And in fact the grain that was seen as a negative is something that I do enjoy seeing in my landscape work and also some portraiture too depending on the subject.

Excalibur2 · Dec 12, 2008

jolefler said:
I've listened to this D vs. F thing since it's inception. What I find amusing is the film argument USED to be about quality; now it's about F comparing favorably against D when considering gear cost, weight, etc. It really wasn't more than a year or two ago I kept hearing digital will NEVER catch up to the quality of film.

Jo

erm not suprising as digital advances every year and now in Photoshop you can simulate the results for makes of film, with goodies...but the biggest advantage of film is the negative..and there is a digital time bomb when ordinary joe public (in the future) wants to replace their fading cheap inkjets prints from stored files on CDs and DVDs and find they don't work anymore.

JBrunner · Dec 12, 2008

jolefler said:
I've listened to this D vs. F thing since it's inception. What I find amusing is the film argument USED to be about quality; now it's about F comparing favorably against D when considering gear cost, weight, etc. It really wasn't more than a year or two ago I kept hearing digital will NEVER catch up to the quality of film.

I'm glad medical advancements aren't scowled at to the extent of imaging advancements (maybe they are in witch doctor circles).

With good composition, focus and exposure practices (read: basic photographic knowlege) my aged 2mp digi does as well on an 8X10 as my Leica II with cheap 400 stuff. To each person, their own preferences.

Sitting here on the computer is giving me a headache....going back to the darkroom (& glad it's not Lightroom).

Jo

See, I've never bought in to this "quality" dreck at all. What is the measure of "quality"? I look for a specific kind of quality, the type that can't be measured, any more than one can measure anything beautiful. Film gives me that. Print sniff until the cows come home, the people who think it is about that can have it. Suck it down. They were a maddeningly boorish lot back in the days when they were into film as well, so I say good riddance.

2F/2F · Dec 12, 2008

JBrunner said:
See, I've never bought in to this "quality" dreck at all. What is the measure of "quality"? I look for a specific kind of quality, the type that can't be measured, any more than one can measure anything beautiful. Film gives me that. Print sniff until the cows come home, the people who think it is about that can have it. Suck it down. They were a maddeningly boorish lot back in the days when they were into film as well, so I say good riddance.

amen

michaelbsc · Dec 12, 2008

jolefler said:
I've listened to this D vs. F thing since it's inception. ...

Jo

I never listened to it. I have never cared if someone preferred digital, and frankly I see why a lot of people do (my brother, my wife, my daughter, etc.). But I always thought the D vs. F debate was as stupid as the Ford vs. Chevy debates when I was in high school. Big deal they were different. I picked what I like, and I didn't care what other people drove. Same when digital came out. I've got a digital P&S in my brief case right now, and I use it for work reasonably often because I can email a broken do-hicky picture to someone with nothing more than a USB cable. Sometimes I even take snaps shots around the shop with it, but not often. But that's work, not my personal time. On my time I do what I want.

The thing we have to remember about TV shows is that TV shows, including the news shows, have one mission, and it's not to inform or entertain us. It is to sell something. In most Westernized countries it is to sell advertising, while in a lot of less secular countries it is to sell the party line. So, this show is about selling ad time, regardless of whether it is ad time for the Nikon digital or ad time for some other gadget. It's no surprise the test is couched in terms that favor the gadget. It's a show designed to sell gadgets, so the show format is geared to grab the attention of gadget geeks. It isn't aimed at this crowed who just the past couple of days have been touting that bunches of us don't even own a TV.

MB

B&Jdude · Dec 12, 2008

I have a el cheapo Canon digital that I use for family snapshots, etc. Quick - just pop the SD card into the kiosk at WalMart, and it spits out oodles of 19 cent prints to pass out to the family.

But, I actually prefer to shoot with my film cameras, LF's, Hassys, Mamiya 645's, Minolta SRT's, Zeiss Super Ikonta, Zenobia's, No. 2 Brownies, and Kodak Panoram's. Since I am quite sensitive to photo chemicals, outsourcing developing and printing costs me a lot more per print than the digital pix, but I enjoy doing it the old fashioned way.

I surely don't miss those complex multilayered menus . . . at the most gimme f stops, shutter speed, & focus . . . I can take pride in knowing that I screwed up my photos all by myself rather than let the camera do it for me.

Smiff

Ken22485 · Dec 12, 2008

But, it was interesting to see the hostess of the show reprise the role of Diana Rigg as Mrs. Emma Peel in her black leather catsuit...

Diana Rigg looked better in the catsuit, though.

Graham.b · Dec 13, 2008

I have been through the post and the one thing i can see missing, is, the photographer who took the shots, photo shoot. They used the word pro, photographer.
If this is the case do you not think he should have some say in this, and what type of film to use, plus in a studio as pointed out allready. What type of lens, way to dev and so on. Right up to the final finish. Should have a different angle on this and the out come.

As been said, M/F film, he should have known this or could this be a do as we want and get some air play, or there is some one else.

2F/2F · Dec 13, 2008

Graham.b said:
I have been through the post and the one thing i can see missing, is, the photographer who took the shots, photo shoot. They used the word pro, photographer.
If this is the case do you not think he should have some say in this, and what type of film to use, plus in a studio as pointed out allready. What type of lens, way to dev and so on. Right up to the final finish. Should have a different angle on this and the out come.

As been said, M/F film, he should have known this or could this be a do as we want and get some air play, or there is some one else.

"Pro" doesn't mean shit. Some of the worst photographers I have ever known are working professionals. The making of a living has about 10% to do with photography itself.

Drew B. · Dec 13, 2008

Ken22485 said:
But, it was interesting to see the hostess of the show reprise the role of Diana Rigg as Mrs. Emma Peel in her black leather catsuit...

Diana Rigg looked better in the catsuit, though.

Oh..I have to disagree! Yes..I'm sure I have to disagree....

Graham.b · Dec 13, 2008

2F/2F said:
"Pro" doesn't mean shit. Some of the worst photographers I have ever known are working professionals. The making of a living has about 10% to do with photography itself.

Good point there, if so there may be more shit out there than we know. Less present company.

2F/2F i can all ways count on a informative reply from you.

Graham

2F/2F · Dec 13, 2008

Graham.b said:
Good point there, if so there may be more shit out there than we know. Less present company.

2F/2F i can all ways count on a informative reply from you.

Graham

Well, sometimes grumpy can equal informative...

paulie · Oct 31, 2009

is that a real photograph lol

nickandre · Oct 31, 2009

If they're going to make the building sized print they at least have to try RA4 printing that big. It's feasible. Just a few rolls supra endura in maximum 60 inch width plus a little duct tape and a monstrous 60 inch roller transport processor in the worlds largest very dark room...

Chan Tran · Nov 1, 2009

the digital camera could be better than the film camera but the comparison was done to favor the digital. No fair comparison.
if you do a digital vs analog audio. Either can be better. But if you digititized the output from a turntable before the listening comparison, is it fair?
Instead of making giant prints, let do 4x6 prints comparision and the results are to be examined under a microscope, all digital media would have much less resolution than anything analog from 35mm and up.

Mike1234 · Nov 1, 2009

First, let me say I have nothing against digital. In fact, I intend to hybridize my process. That said, as others have already stated, they seem to have tweaked their test to favor digital. They spent far too much money on grandstanding and wow-factoring with giant prints. As always these days, they took the "Barnum & Bailey" approach to their "informative report". They should have made 20x30 prints with several film types/speeds and included some "equal cost" medium format as well. But this video isn't about scientific truth. It's about selling something as are all other so-called comparisons/tests/reviews these days. They're all about advertising and brainwashing, IMHO. Did anyone catch the brands and company names they dropped? Advertising... all of it. Hell, even most news is at least half advertising these days. Yuck.....

digital vs. film test on TV

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency