The comeback?

[RPC]

It depends what you want from a photograph, but most people would agree that a modern full frame camera has higher resolving power than an equivalent 35mm one. That's what I meant by objective.

That is debatable. The "higher resolving power" you see is to a degree created by algorithms in the camera software. Not so with film.

 

[blockend]

That is debatable. The "higher resolving power" you see is to a degree created by algorithms in the camera software. Not so with film.

Not to a degree, but completely. It's software "all the way down". Resolving power is the ability to render information before artefacts intervene. In digital this might be pixel stepping or processing glitches, on film, grain and softness. I've seen 18mp full frame images printed several feet across and fully resolved, nose to the print, so I assume 42 million pixel images will offer similar detail at even greater magnifications. I've yet to see a 35mm print offer similar information at the same magnification.

Digital has no default field of information, it's all process. This observation is in no way connected to how pleasing an image is, or the process from which it derives.

 

[Sirius Glass]

It depends what you want from a photograph, but most people would agree that a modern full frame camera has higher resolving power than an equivalent 35mm one. That's what I meant by objective.

Unless there is a new sensor that the GRBG pixels are smaller than silver grains, this is bunk! They resolving power that you are claiming are artifacts of software processing and may or may not have anything to do with reality.

 

[blockend]

Unless there is a new sensor that the GRBG pixels are smaller than silver grains, this is bunk! They resolving power that you are claiming are artifacts of software processing and may or may not have anything to do with reality.

Did you read my post?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Did you read my post?

Yes, and I spent a career in Electrical Engineering, Optics and Computer Science, wrote books, and taught in a university as a professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science for a decade. What you wrote is technically called bunk derived from the elixir of goal driven desire to make digital imaging better than it presently exists.

 

[blockend]

Yes, and I spent a career in Electrical Engineering, Optics and Computer Science, wrote books, and taught in a university as a professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science for a decade. What you wrote is technically called bunk derived from the elixir of goal driven desire to make digital imaging better than it presently exists.

Your appeals to authority are not relevant to the discussion. The point is whether a current digital sensor the same size as a frame of 35mm film can deliver more information before artefacts intervene. Modern full frame sensors are constructed of up to 45 million pixels, which are then algorithmically processed . A 35mm 50 ASA transparency projected on the best quality reflective screen, will not render the same information as a such a sensor at similar sizes. A print won't come close before artefacts like grain become apparent.

Bringing concepts like "real" into the discussion may have archival relevance, but a digital print is no less tangible than a silver print.

 

[RPC]

Close up, algorithm sharpened images look "artificial" to me, since that's what they are. Comparable film images may not appear to be as sharp but look more natural.

In addition to sharpness, many other aspects of a digital image are artificial, but I digress.

 

[faberryman]

Does it really matter whether 50 ASA 35mm film has or doesn't have higher resolving power than a 45MP digital sensor. Is that what is important?

 

[blockend]

Close up, algorithm sharpened images look "artificial" to me, since that's what they are. Comparable film images may not appear to be as sharp but look more natural.

In addition to sharpness, many other aspects of a digital image are artificial, but I digress.

That gets us into personal perception and what looks nice. 120 slide film on uncoated 3-element lenses looks nice to me, but I'm not using it for objective resolution purposes.

 

[RPC]

Why do some people seem to have a problem with others discussing the differences between the two media? It may not matter to you, but yes, it matters to some.

 

[blockend]

Does it really matter whether 50 ASA 35mm film has or doesn't have higher resolving power than a 45MP digital sensor. Is that what is important?

This point has grown legs because someone took exception to my analogy between old audio equipment and film photography, and the use of the term objective. If I like the sound of cassette tape or analogue radio signals (which I do) and someone else likes the look of big landscape prints shot on a Minox, there is no higher appeal than our preferences. Hence my use of "warm fuzzy feeling". Other people have said the difference matters, not me. My point was addressed to quantifiable criteria that can be evidenced, and just as importantly, extracted from the source material.

 

[RPC]

That gets us into personal perception and what looks nice. 120 slide film on uncoated 3-element lenses looks nice to me, but I'm not using it for objective resolution purposes.

But still, scientists and engineers work hard to improve the specs of their products, and the reasons cannot solely be based on personal perception.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Close up, algorithm sharpened images look "artificial" to me, since that's what they are. Comparable film images may not appear to be as sharp but look more natural.

In addition to sharpness, many other aspects of a digital image are artificial, but I digress.

That is because it is artificial. Change a coefficient and it will look different. Change the algorithm and it will completely different. And none of them will portray what is really there.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

It’s what we call a “shopping center” here in Brazil (yes, we say it in English, go figure!), but in the USA. I am not sure how they call it in the UK.

It’s really sorta like hell, especially on weekends.

We also call them shopping centres... no clue what they're called in the US.

@MattKing , that's the only time I go to the mall for me... otherwise I just follow my wife and daughter around, slowly dropping further and further behind so that I can slip inside Tim Hortons...

 

[blockend]

That is because it is artificial. Change a coefficient and it will look different. Change the algorithm and it will completely different. And none of them will portray what is really there.

Neither does film. Fragments of silver darken in light, and dyes are released. Neither of those were in nature. Photography is inherently artificial, an abstraction. Look at Kodachrome sometime, reality never looked like that. It may be a compelling look, but authentic it is not: http://blog.iso50.com/26784/large-format-kodachromes/

 

[Helinophoto]

Does it really matter whether 50 ASA 35mm film has or doesn't have higher resolving power than a 45MP digital sensor. Is that what is important?

Agree, but one should not deny the fact.
Then again, this is relative to the size of the film.

Large-format film still out-resolves digital, because the amount of silver-particles (or dyes) representing the same subject, will me much greater than for example 35mm, and also a typical 20-30 megapixel sensor.

However:
It may be my scanning-technique, but compared to my 5D mk III, taken with equivalent focal lengths at around f8-f10, my Canon 5D mk III with a 24-105 F4 L, has much more (fine) detail than shots taken with my Hasselblad and 80 f2.8, Rolleiflex 2.8F and my Mamiya RZ 67 Pro II with the 110 f2.8 and Fujipro 160ns.

In a typical head-to-toe shot, I can see skin-pores, lashes, stray-hairs, fabric-structure etc that will be blurred or lacking detail on film, taken with these excellent analog cameras.

I would be very interested to drum-scan some of my negatives to see if this is really the case, or if my scanner is near garbage (Epson v750).

Still, I only pixel-peep on digital, due to the type of processing I do....I normally look at the shot as a whole, to see if it is junk or gold......so in that respect, resolution, digital or analog, mean jack squat, as long as I can print them in 30cm *40cm if I need to.

 

[blockend]

I would be very interested to drum-scan some of my negatives to see if this is really the case, or if my scanner is near garbage (Epson v750).

An article I read that described the physics and mechanics of digitising negatives said the following. The theoretical upper limit of a 35mm negatives is 50 megapixels +/-. That is to say a means of exhaustively resolving each individual halide into digital form. No such means exists. The practical upper limit is around 24 mp. A typical 35mm scan is around 5 megapixels.

A good flatbed scan with perfect negative alignment is good for approximately 6 mp. A drum scan will yield more, maybe 12 mp. Of course the film process only exhausts the potential in a perfectly exposed transparency shot with a lens resolving over 100 lines (50 is more typical), and that is at the mercy of intermediate technology like the projector lens. Print processes are more lossy (enlarging lens, paper alignment and silver content, chemistry). Which is why I hold the view that digital technology out-resolves film in all practical purposes on a similar full frame/35mm source. As few of us are medical, astronomical or surveillance photographers, dragging the last bit of detail from an image is irrelevant to us, creatively speaking, but it doesn't change the facts.

To ponder just how irrelevant resolution is for a visceral response to the photographic image, here's a shot from the sub-miniature group (not my photo!) A slither of 3200 ASA film: https://www.photrio.com/forum/groupphotos/photo?photo_id=1076
Beautiful!

 

[Cholentpot]

I never stopped using a fountain pen. Was that meant to be sarcastic? I can't even imagine using a biro,

Yes.

 

[Svenedin]

Yes.

Fair enough. I'm unashamedly old-fashioned!

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I was at an antique car show and caught one of the participants who entered his old car wearing a film camera. This guy is all in. Still in 1966 although I can;t tell what camera it is.

 

[MattKing]

I was at an antique car show and caught one of the participants who entered his old car wearing a film camera. This guy is all in. Still in 1966 although I can;t tell what camera it is.
View attachment 208875

Looks like an AE-1 - far too new for a 1966 Mustang !

 

[moose10101]

I was at an antique car show and caught one of the participants who entered his old car wearing a film camera. This guy is all in. Still in 1966 although I can;t tell what camera it is.
View attachment 208875

Looks like a Canon AE-1 Program, based on the grip and the stop-down slider to the right of the lens.

 

[Cholentpot]

Fair enough. I'm unashamedly old-fashioned!

I'm pretty young and enjoy things that are obsolete in a practical sense. Somethings are a joy to work with, others just get the job done.

 

[Svenedin]

I'm pretty young and enjoy things that are obsolete in a practical sense. Somethings are a joy to work with, others just get the job done.

Fountain pens are a joy to use and as I probably write about a dozen sides of A4 a day at work that pleasure makes a difference. I don’t regard a fountain pen as obsolete though as nothing recreates it.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

Film looks more natural? Both film and digital sensors result in analogies for subsequent images. Both have their artifacts and compromises born of mechanics and processes. As for film looking natural...that is the consequence of a narrative experience shaped by 195 years of emulsion-based capture displayed in our culture. Digital "looks" different, perhaps to the trained eye; we have grown to" accept" film expression as accurate. The Kodachrome example above confronts that pretty well.