The irony of film beating digital at its own game.....

Ray Heath · Apr 26, 2010

yeh, I guess I misinterpreted the OP by assuming that a technique described as "INFINITELY better" would be readily demonstrable on a photography site by a photographer with strong convictions

Tim Gray · Apr 27, 2010

Matus Kalisky said:
I am wondering whether this has to do with something else. I remember seeing two scans of one 35mm slide somewhere on flickr (the subject was a rose) one made with Coolscan 5000 and one with Epson V700 (or similar). Even though there is a clear difference in real resolution - one would expect that downsizing the images to some 800x600 pixels there can not be any difference. Well - the difference between the scans was that the one made with the Coolscan was "crispier" with better micro contrast.

Arri did a study on this. About how 4k motion picture scans were superior to 2k ones, even if the final output was 2k. Or something along those lines. I didn't read the whole thing, just skimmed it, but here it is.

SilverGlow · Apr 27, 2010

I have found that when using a 21mp DSLR, it MURDERS 35mm film in details, sharpness, and resolving power.

However the 35mm film MURDERS this DSLR in dynamic range.

And for this reason, I prefer to shoot 35mm film over digital, because I value DR more then resolving details.

sanking · Apr 30, 2010

I tend to believe that words can be as useful in communicating comparitive distinctions of analog versus digital representations as visual comparisons. Indeed, many people do not agree that that "image" is the thing. I for one believe that the object/photograph itself is the only important thing and that anything seen in an image file is only a second hand copy of a referrent and construct of the phenomelogical world.

Sandy King

SilverGlow · May 6, 2010

sanking said:
I tend to believe that words can be as useful in communicating comparitive distinctions of analog versus digital representations as visual comparisons. Indeed, many people do not agree that that "image" is the thing. I for one believe that the object/photograph itself is the only important thing and that anything seen in an image file is only a second hand copy of a referrent and construct of the phenomelogical world.

Sandy King

So true Sandy, and in other words, it's the composition that matters and is the prime directive....too much is made about the process, the medium, the journey, and not often enough about the reward: the print.

Tony-S · May 12, 2010

SilverGlow said:
However the 35mm film MURDERS this DSLR in dynamic range.

Do you scan those and, if so, do you lose that dynamic range?

SilverGlow · May 23, 2010

Tony, I scan all my 35mm film pictures. As to DR, yes I believe some is lost but not as much as when shooting with my DSLR...scanned film still has wider DR.

Tony-S · May 24, 2010

That's good to hear - thanks.

The irony of film beating digital at its own game.....

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency