Hi Bilodeau...
In my experience of viewing probably thousands of shots online unless a film image is scanned on a very good scanner and properly processed (optimized), the answer is 'no'.
The 'average' shot taken with a 3MP digital will *appear* sharper with better contrast and color than a 35mm negative or slide that has been scanned with the 'average' scanner.
I don't have any experience with them, but dedicated film scanners made by Minolta and Nikon that sell for around $650 street are much better than flat beds. If you intention is to get good scans from your film negs or slides I recommend you look into a dedicated film scanner.
Now, this is only as far as web posting and viewing is concerned. I can't give you an honest experienced answer about the same images will look when printed (film scans vs original digital images). Perhaps someone can stop by and help us both out with this...
If every keystroke was a shutter press I'd be a pro by now...
There are many factors involved with the 2 mediums. Digital has a heavy advantage towards being the champ. Take a digital image into photoshop and use any of the tools and your choice will be very clear. Sure, you could use a scanned image but that is so time consuming. Someone asked me at a wedding about how happy I was using digital and would I ever consider returning to film. I quickly answered him….now that you have driven your car, would you every go back to a horse and buggy?
I have been digital for almost 4 years and love every minute of it. One of my close friends just sold all of his Hasseys (50k new) for just $3k. Ouch!
There was a thread recently that said the majority of the fashion photogs (i think that was the discipline) is still shooting film, but digitizing it for publication.
So the answer is..."maybe." It's my personal opinion, that it's far cheaper to shoot/publish with a 6mp+ prosumer digicam than it is a film camera of similar capabilities, since you still have to develop the negs, digitize with a highend scanner, and finally adjust stuff in photoshop before publishing.
crap...i wrote that last para five times. sorry if it doesn't make any sense.
"Consulting the rules of composition before taking a photograph, is like consulting the laws of gravity before going for a walk." - Edward Weston "The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over."-Hunter S.Thompson
What is it you like/ don't like regarding film vs digital in an image. When comparing the two, say, identical pics,wich one do you say is better?
As a n0ob to digital and certainly no expert with film, i'm wondering what my expectations will be. Realizing i have a lot to learn, i guess i'm not to sure what to expect nor even understand the differences.
I've been taking photography classes in Austin by one of the top-rated wedding and portrait photographers in town. Great people person, decades of experience, and a wonderful person to learn from. He still shoots film, and medium format when he can.
Partly it is due to his familiarity of the equipment, both in terms of the camera and in doing his own darkroom work. And partly because film still has a few advantages over digital. But that is shrinking.
Medium format in particular still has more resolving power than digital. And film also has more dynamic range than digital (though Fuji is trying to change that in their S3). There can be a striking difference in shadwo detail of medium format film versus digital, even after Photoshop work.
When I was in Death Valley two weeks ago my girlfriend and I were at Badwater waiting for sunrise. A bloke about 100 yards to my right is waiting for the same picture. He has a large format viewfinder camera with him. Even a 16 megapixel Canon won't take the image his film camera can.
Not knowing the dynamics of film or digital very well, i like everyone, enjoy a nice photo. Maybe what i'm trying to ask is, can a digital photo be as robust as film. I would like to see comparisions between the two using exact iso, f-stop,lighting, subject, etc. That is something that would show/tell me a lot.
With only a few photos under my belt with the digi, i'm a little lost on what i should/expect to see. But as i said, i'm ready to go make mistakes and have fun.
There was a thread recently that said the majority of the fashion photogs (i think that was the discipline) is still shooting film, but digitizing it for publication.
So the answer is..."maybe." It's my personal opinion, that it's far cheaper to shoot/publish with a 6mp+ prosumer digicam than it is a film camera of similar capabilities, since you still have to develop the negs, digitize with a highend scanner, and finally adjust stuff in photoshop before publishing.
crap...i wrote that last para five times. sorry if it doesn't make any sense.
I think a lot of the pros you mention (particularly fashion photographers) use large format cameras. They shoot many many shots of essentially the same scene and get large contact prints made from the negatives. They pour over their sheets, circle the pic they want, and give it to someone else to deal with from then on. Until large format digital cameras come down in price (which is just a matter of time, I suspect) I think the pros who use them will stay with film.
From a purely theoretical perspective (not aesthetic) all-digitial is about equal to film for reasonably fine-grained 35mm film. Even so, color negative film has much more dynamic range than even raw digitial, meaning that you can rescue a badly over- or under-exposed film shot that you could not rescue if it were digital. But then, one of the beauties of digital is that you can just take a look at the picture on camera and shoot it over again if it is so badly exposed on your first try. Rare, only-one-chance, shots are different, of course. If you knew you were only going to get a single chance to take one exposure under less than ideal lighting conditions, I think most people would probably prefer to have good color negative film loaded instead of an array of photo-sensors.
Comments
In my experience of viewing probably thousands of shots online unless a film image is scanned on a very good scanner and properly processed (optimized), the answer is 'no'.
The 'average' shot taken with a 3MP digital will *appear* sharper with better contrast and color than a 35mm negative or slide that has been scanned with the 'average' scanner.
I don't have any experience with them, but dedicated film scanners made by Minolta and Nikon that sell for around $650 street are much better than flat beds. If you intention is to get good scans from your film negs or slides I recommend you look into a dedicated film scanner.
Now, this is only as far as web posting and viewing is concerned. I can't give you an honest experienced answer about the same images will look when printed (film scans vs original digital images). Perhaps someone can stop by and help us both out with this...
I have been digital for almost 4 years and love every minute of it. One of my close friends just sold all of his Hasseys (50k new) for just $3k. Ouch!
Moving Beyond Photography
VirtualPhotographyStudio.com
So the answer is..."maybe." It's my personal opinion, that it's far cheaper to shoot/publish with a 6mp+ prosumer digicam than it is a film camera of similar capabilities, since you still have to develop the negs, digitize with a highend scanner, and finally adjust stuff in photoshop before publishing.
crap...i wrote that last para five times. sorry if it doesn't make any sense.
"The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over."-Hunter S.Thompson
As a n0ob to digital and certainly no expert with film, i'm wondering what my expectations will be. Realizing i have a lot to learn, i guess i'm not to sure what to expect nor even understand the differences.
Partly it is due to his familiarity of the equipment, both in terms of the camera and in doing his own darkroom work. And partly because film still has a few advantages over digital. But that is shrinking.
Medium format in particular still has more resolving power than digital. And film also has more dynamic range than digital (though Fuji is trying to change that in their S3). There can be a striking difference in shadwo detail of medium format film versus digital, even after Photoshop work.
When I was in Death Valley two weeks ago my girlfriend and I were at Badwater waiting for sunrise. A bloke about 100 yards to my right is waiting for the same picture. He has a large format viewfinder camera with him. Even a 16 megapixel Canon won't take the image his film camera can.
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
With only a few photos under my belt with the digi, i'm a little lost on what i should/expect to see. But as i said, i'm ready to go make mistakes and have fun.
Learning is fun!
I think a lot of the pros you mention (particularly fashion photographers) use large format cameras. They shoot many many shots of essentially the same scene and get large contact prints made from the negatives. They pour over their sheets, circle the pic they want, and give it to someone else to deal with from then on. Until large format digital cameras come down in price (which is just a matter of time, I suspect) I think the pros who use them will stay with film.
From a purely theoretical perspective (not aesthetic) all-digitial is about equal to film for reasonably fine-grained 35mm film. Even so, color negative film has much more dynamic range than even raw digitial, meaning that you can rescue a badly over- or under-exposed film shot that you could not rescue if it were digital. But then, one of the beauties of digital is that you can just take a look at the picture on camera and shoot it over again if it is so badly exposed on your first try. Rare, only-one-chance, shots are different, of course. If you knew you were only going to get a single chance to take one exposure under less than ideal lighting conditions, I think most people would probably prefer to have good color negative film loaded instead of an array of photo-sensors.