File :-(, x, )
Digital vs Film What!!!!!!!!!
Digital versus film? which is better.

or is that like an epic question.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2005:06:09 18:35:57Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width380Image Height284
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Bitches don't know 'bout mah glass plates.

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Elements 2.0Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2006:12:07 15:13:42Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width704Image Height641
>> What!!!!!!!!!
>>104396
WHAT!!!!!!!!!! does that mean
>> What!!!!!!!!!
>>104392
ok force feed time whats better digital or film
>> Anonymous
>>104426

plates
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Neither is better, both have their unique advantages and disadvantages.

Sage for being an underage moron.
>> Anonymous
>>104429
Not OP, but it would be awesome if someone could list some of the advantages and disadvantages of digital versus conventional film...
>> sage sage
sage
>> Anonymous
You can get much better low light performance with digital now.
>> Anonymous
Film
/thread
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
Digital:
* Lower cost in the long term
* Immediate preview
* Immediately digital. I.e., no need to scan if you want to share over the Interwebs
* (arguably) less ugliness at high ISO (i.e., a good DSLR at ISO1600 looks a lot better than grainy-ass color ISO1600 film. Or even black and white, for that matter)
* No reciprocity failure, making long exposures easier to calculate
* Ability to correct a lot more problems in post

Film:
* Lower cost in the short term
* Larger formats available, which can give higher quality. I.e., there aren't any digital sensors that equal the quality of 4x5 or 8x10 film as of yet, assuming you don't have the budget of a small government
* Longevity. A properly cared for negative (B&W, at least. Color less so) will outlive your grandchildren. There's no telling how long support for the current morass of RAW formats will last (although things like dcraw suggest it'll be a while)
* That little cash register noise that plays in your head along with the noise of the mirror and shutter means that you're likely to work a little harder to get the perfect shot rather than just spraying and praying.
* Reciprocity failure means that film has a nice toe and shoulder at the ends of its exposure curves, effectively giving you more dynamic range for better looking shots without any postprocessing
* A lot of people, myself included, find film grain to be better looking than digital noise, especially in color
* The look of certain types of film is aesthetically pleasing and hard to reproduce in digital. The best example of this being Velvia 50.

tl;dr: Film and digital are both awesome. Use what you like. Use both and learn what each is best for for massive victory.
>> Anonymous
>>104430
Advantages of film:
- Better resolution at low sensitivities and when shooting high-contrast detail (due to the nature of film grain).
- Softer highlight edges due to non-linear sensitivity to light.
- Overexposed or underexposed images can be recovered with smaller quality loss.
- Can be used with very long exposures without any consequences (digital sensors are prone to hot pixels and increased noise due to heating)
- Cameras are generally cheaper, lighter and more reliable; fully mechanical ones don't require batteries to operate.

Advantages of digital:
- Instant image review.
- No per-shot costs unless you want paper prints.
- Better resolution at high sensitivities and when shooting low-contrast detail.
- Variable sensitivity and white balance.
- Faster shutter speeds possible on smaller digital sensors.
- Sensor-shift image stabilization.
>> Anonymous
>>104431
I wasn't aware that /b/ was down, but if you have nothing to add to the topic, then don't say anything.

OP, check out the link at the end of my post. It's a long explanation on the subject and I think you can get everything you want from it. Long story short, film is capable of doing MUCH better than digital, but hardly anyone is capable of utilizing film in such a way that produces a better image than digital. There are some extra reasons for and against digital/film, but I won't reiterate everything that the article said.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm
>> Anonymous
I've shot my favorite pictures with film, but I'd argue that it was only because I knew that every shot I took would cost me $x.xx when I went to develop, so I took care to make every shot count. I suppose you could argue the same effect would occur if you had capacity for only 30 shots on your digital camera and no computer to sync up with for a day or two.
>> Anonymous
Most folk here aren't counting medium format digital backs or other more professional gear when they think of "digital" as they'll never get their hands on non-consumer gear.
>> Anonymous
>>104446

Arguably less ugliness at ISO1600? Have you seen what the 5D can do at ISO3200? It's astonishing and that's still just a consumer camera.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>104457

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D3Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 MacintoshMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern790Focal Length (35mm Equiv)190 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:09:24 00:30:08Exposure Time1/100 secF-Numberf/2.8Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating4000Exposure Bias1/3 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length190.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width655Image Height468RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlHigh Gain UpContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>104457

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D3Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 MacintoshMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern790Focal Length (35mm Equiv)24 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:09:24 00:37:29Exposure Time1/30 secF-Numberf/2.8Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating2500Exposure Bias1 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceTungstenFlashNo FlashFocal Length24.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width655Image Height468RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlHigh Gain UpContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>104453
Yeah, in my experience, if I go out with my digital SLR vs. going out with just a film SLR, for a given amount of time I end up with an equal amount of keepers. But I'll have a few orders of magnitude more throw-aways with the digital.
>> Anonymous
>>104450
That article by Rockwell dates back to 2003 and he hasn't thoroughly updated it, especially in places where he gives examples of camera models and prices. Still, most of what he said holds true today.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>104457
Arguable because a lot of people think digital noise looks like ass whereas grain looks good.
>> Anonymous
>>104463
Hence I keep my old SLR camera and continue to buy Point and Shoots when I need something for "common" photography( friends and family, etc... excluding special events)

I'm thinking about buying lenses for this old SLR, but it really is so old that I don't know if I could get any new lenses( or even used lenses that weren't mangled).
>> Anonymous
>>104458
>>104461
uh, while I agree that 5D's high ISO performance is awesome, even some 2x crop olympus can produce decent 600x400 pixel images at ISO 3200.
>> Anonymous
>>104465

film grain = good is just nostalgia, much like why people would fork out $5,000 for an M8. 30 years ago, did people really get fast film because of its grain? No, they thought it also sucked ass, but was a necessary evil to get that moment.

30 years from now, kids would look at photos of today and try to emulate the digital noise in our cameras for their myspace/facebook/friendster/whatever's hip 30 years from now.
>> Anonymous
>>104470

people have taken photos of themselves in front of mirrors since cameras were first made
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>104468
Truth. I believe that in the future, people will hire expensive professional photographers to get that myspacey camera-at-FGA-in-the-bathroom look for portraits.
>> des
>>104471
Generally that's a fine idea, as long as the camera is also in front of the mirror. It helps your posing.
Unfortunately most people haven't figured that out yet; self-times, either, apparently. :P
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
Slide film! <3

>>104429
I am inclined to agree with this man.
>> Anonymous
>>104453

Very true that capacity thing: When I was in Sweden and had absolutely no chance of recharging the batteries of my cam I was really careful what I photographed.
>> Anonymous !MjcMqTX/iM
>>104429
Even though the example sucks, I agree on the comment.
>> Anonymous
Learn some discipline. Anyone who says that using film instead "helps them to stop and think" due to the lower numbers of shots are missing the point completely. Why not deliberately ruin some shots on your roll of film before going out too? Only go out with one or two shots and then they'll ALWAYS be amazing by that logic.

Buy a small memory card or simply say "I'll only take five shots with it". It's just as pointless, but at least if you do need 100+ you still have the option.

God, you people are retarded.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>104471
>> Anonymous
>>104447- Sensor-shift image stabilization.

lols
>> Anonymous
uh, film. duh.
>> Anonymous
>>104505
Get some velvia 50 and an old SLR camera, shoot it.
Then we'll talk.
>> elf_man !!DdAnyoDMfCe
>>104551
That has nothing to do with discipline, which is what he was talking about. He didn't say a thing about image quality.
>> Anonymous
>>104531
What's your problem?

It allows me to shoot at 1/8 seconds handheld with my 50-year-old Takumar. Can't do that with film.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
film. it is like comparing vinyl to cd's. vinyls sound warmer and are more work and generally more expensive per disc, cd's are more convenient but too perfect.

attached pic taken with a canon t70 with ilford hp5 film. i love my film.
>> Anonymous !MjcMqTX/iM
>>104591
HP5 FTW!
>> Anonymous
>>104429
sage for shitty pictoral representation
>> Anonymous
>>104604
It's not supposed to be accurate, just to give a basic idea of how film and digital works.
>> Anonymous
>>104604
It's not supposed to be accurate, just to give a basic idea of how film and digital images work.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Here's a slightly less shitty imitation of film and digital images (in color, too)
>> Anonymous
>>104617
UPD.: I suck at imitating high sensitivity color film in photoshop.
>> Anonymous
>>104396
Ah bets you gots three of dem.
>> Anonymous
>>104446
>>104447
You left out: "Film archives better and won't be unreadable due to format changes in storage".
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>104659
The hell I did. Reread my post. #3 under film advantages.
>> Anonymous
>>104677
tl;dr :-P
>> Anonymous
Image quality:

Film > Digital

Not paying to buy and develop film, or worrying about every single shot you take:

Film < Digital

I have a Nikon N75, and just got a Nikon D80 for Christmas
>> Timbaland
>>104659
Are there really people who fear the quantum-nano-ai-supercomputer-glados whatevers of the future will be too far removed from PC's to decypher nef files and the like?
Because they won't have a DVD drive? Because the specifications are nikons dirty little secret? What's the argument here, exactly?