Does film have better dynamic range than digital?

[brainmonster]

I was talking to the guy who works at the film lab I go to, and he claimed that film has better dynamic range than digital. Something to do with the overexposure latitude that film has. Is he mistaken with his terminology or is he correct? Which has better dynamic range?

 

[Arvee]

Here ya go...with examples!
https://petapixel.com/2019/05/02/film-vs-digital-this-is-how-dynamic-range-compares/

 

[removed account4]

hi brainmonster
what kind of film is he talking about black and white / color negative film? or chrome (slide) film?
negative ( black/white+color ) has a lot more wiggle room, you can under and over expose and still get a good usable negative
that will make a good print but slide film, it has less wiggle room. exposure with slide film has to be pretty close to right on, just like with digital.
the whole multi exposure layer thing ( HDR ) is like when you could pre-expose slide film, and it is a way for people to get more wiggle room.
so i guess the answer to your question is .. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Chan Tran]

If you talk about latitude (which is different from dynamic range) then I can underexpose my digital camera by 4 or 5 stops and the image is still fine.

 

[AgX]

In film there is exposure range, dynamic range and latitude. All are different.

However, the greater the exposure range, the greater the latitude.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I was talking to the guy who works at the film lab I go to, and he claimed that film has better dynamic range than digital. Something to do with the overexposure latitude that film has. Is he mistaken with his terminology or is he correct? Which has better dynamic range?

Here is two DR. In the past video and graphics technicians called the variety of gradations of grey and colour as DR. Film still wins.

But in modern dp review digital only world where technical credentials of expertise is unknown, they are using dr term for how much you could push digital image without visible quality loss. And of course digital wons. This is how those “experts” are getting paid for.
I was at Blue Aunt media presentation and they claimed how their digital production with so called HDR is closed to film. I’ve been quiet, I’m not party pooper, but it was obviously enough.

 

[Chan Tran]

Neither film nor digital has the ability to capture a full dynamic range of a high contrast scene but either has more dynamic range that can be put on a print or a computer display of course unless you compress it.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Yes and no. Yes with a single shot. When you over expose a highlight on film, there's still detail to be extracted. With digital, you can recover blown highlights to a certain point. However, there's a lot of people shooting HDR and it's sort of cheating, but it's quite effective. When I shoot film, I check the range of shadows and highlights to best figure out how to fit the range on film. It's a creative decision working with the limited range of film and development. More dynamic range does not mean better. It all depends on what you want to communicate.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I was talking to the guy who works at the film lab I go to, and he claimed that film has better dynamic range than digital. Something to do with the overexposure latitude that film has. Is he mistaken with his terminology or is he correct? Which has better dynamic range?

In a word yes. Film has more dynamic range. HDR is a crutch that digital photographers use to make up for present deficiencies. If something moves in the field of view, it is game over without major recreating the scene.

 

[Mr Bill]

... he claimed that film has better dynamic range than digital. Something to do with the overexposure latitude that film has. Is he mistaken with his terminology or is he correct?

Hi, I think his terminology is not quite right; I think that "dynamic range" might only be a proper term for digital photography. With film I generally use the term "luminance recording range." (Am I wrong? Anybody?)

Here's something I posted recently; it's just about 30 years old now. The author claims a "luminance recording range" of about a million to one, equivalent to about 20 f-stops, for the Tmax 100 film of 1990. The high parts of the potential range are not very usable under normal circumstances, but it IS there. Let me know when you find a digital camera with that much range.

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/where-would-film-technology-be-now.171630/page-3#post-2234973

To be fair, it's not that simple, though. Geek stuff available if you want it. The sticking point seems to be about how small an area you look at to make the call.

 

[AgX]

Film has more dynamic range.

Hi, I think his terminology is not quite right; I think that "dynamic range" might only be a proper term for digital photography. With film I generally use the term "luminance recording range." (Am I wrong? Anybody?)

With film dynamic range means the difference between Dminand Dmax.
A film with a really high dynamic range may have a very limited exposure range.

Latitude is the sum of play for a standardized subject brightness range within the exposure range.

 

[Sirius Glass]

With film dynamic range means the difference between Dminand Dmax.
A film with a really high dynamic range may have a very limited exposure range.

Latitude is the sum of play for a standardized subject brightness range within the exposure range.

I do not follow what you mean. Would you expand your point to make it clearer, please?

 

[brainmonster]

I too do not understand the relation between film dynamic range and its relation with exposure latitude that agx expressed. What film would have a low latitude and high dynamic range?

 

[removed account4]

HDR is a crutch that digital photographers use to make up for present deficiencies

as much as pre-flashing chrome or CN film or a sheet of paper, "hypering" film or making a alternative process print using 3 different ( or more ) negatives.
not really a crutch but something that can be used to improve usefulness of materials.

 

[MattKing]

Dynamic range may very well refer to the range of usable densities available on the film negative, rather than the range of exposures that the film responds to in a usable way.
"Latitude" would be more appropriately related to the latter.

 

[AgX]

I too do not understand the relation between film dynamic range and its relation with exposure latitude that agx expressed. What film would have a low latitude and high dynamic range?

The typical example is colour reversal film.


The error made here by some is mixing up exposure range with dynamic range.
The first is the useful range to expose the film, the second is the effective density range resulting from the respective exposures.
Of course both are linked, best seen at the characteristic curve. However the relation may vary, depending on the intended use of that film, and the needed density range. Resulting in different emulsion design.

Also mixed up are exposure range and latitude.
I explained that in my post above too.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

In a word yes. Film has more dynamic range. HDR is a crutch that digital photographers use to make up for present deficiencies. If something moves in the field of view, it is game over without major recreating the scene.

Like a crutch, it’s just another tool. Back in the 90’s when I worked on interior shots, the amount of filling of dark shadows and goboing of highlights was a challenge to get the light to fit on film. With HDR, it’s much simpler and allows photographers more control.