With all due respect, Henning, but if one needs a lab and scientific equipment to detect this "superiority", it can be argued that from commercial point of view it doesn't exist.
With all respect, Gregg, but I have
not written that. You've understood me wrong.
The differences - and in several cases / parameters the technical advantages of film - can be clearly seen by the average film user / film enthusiast.
For example the better detail rendition of an optical print made with a Rodagon / APO-Rodagon enlarging lens (or the equivalent Schneider-Kreuznach lenses) on silver-halide paper compared to a scan, made with the very popular flatbed or cheaper consumer scanners and then printed with a home inkjet printer.
Or the big and clearly visible advantage in detail rendition and three-dimensional look of slide projection compared to digital projection: This very "true-to-life" three-dimensional look of a transparency on the lighttable under an excellent loupe and in projection with excellent projection lenses cannot be got / obtained by monitors and digital projection (they look flat with no depth in comparison).
In detail rendition / resolution there is also a clear advantage, as even the most expensive digital projectors have only a 4k (8MP) output. That is only a small fraction of what film can deliver in projection: I have tested it. The results are of course -.as always - depending on the object / detail contrast. But even at a quite low object contrast of only two stops (1:4) you get 40-50 MP on the screen.
And even higher values with higher contrast details. Or with high-resolution BW reversal film, like ADOX CMS 20 II. With that you are approaching 200 MP on the screen with 35mm film.
In projection I have clear technical advantages with film:
Better look (3-D), colour brillance and detail rendition. And all that at a much lower price, as the best slide projectors cost much, much less than the best digital projectors.
Therefore also a much better price-performance ratio.
And why
should I not inform my workshops students about these advantages? Or why should a blogger or youtuber not talk about it?
The workshop student, reader of the blog or youtube channel viewer wants information. And when he has got the information he can
decide by himself whether the technical differences or advantages may be important for him and his photography or not.
Any kind of self-censorship or withholding / restraining / holding off of information is counterproductive. Give your audience the information in the best and most informative / detailed way.
And trust in their ability to decide by themselves which factors and parameters are important to them.
Any kind of paternalism would not be helpful.
For you certain advantages of film may be not important at all. That is absolutely o.k, as you know best what
you want and need.
But people are very different in their wishes and needs:
And for other photographers especially those advantages of film you don't care for are very important, for them.
We should be tolerant concerning all these different needs.
We should give information to (new) film photographers as informative / comprehensive / detailed as possible. Including technological strengths and advantages of film.
In a factual, objective way. Self-confident, but definitely not in an evengalizing / preaching or arrogant way.
Best regards,
Henning
