Technology Climax.

[GQgeek]

Originally Posted by caelte

Is an apple better than an orange?

No, but I'd say a top of the line dSLR can beat any 35mm these days and that a Hasselbad can trump any medium format camera. It took a long time for digital cameras to get to there, but i think you could make a pretty strong argument at this point that digital > film. Why do you think pros have been making the switch in large numbers, even for medium format (for those that can afford to)? It's easier to get the results you want and it improves workflow by a large margin. Even if we say that image quality is the same on a high-end slr or dslr, the dslr brings tons of other features and improvements that make it easier and faster to get things done.

 

[LabelKing]

Originally Posted by GQgeek

No, but I'd say a top of the line dSLR can beat any 35mm these days and that a Hasselbad can trump any medium format camera. It took a long time for digital cameras to get to there, but i think you could make a pretty strong argument at this point that digital > film. Why do you think pros have been making the switch in large numbers, even for medium format (for those that can afford to)? It's easier to get the results you want and it improves workflow by a large margin. Even if we say that image quality is the same on a high-end slr or dslr, the dslr brings tons of other features and improvements that make it easier and faster to get things done.
That has more to do with lens quality than anything else. A DLSR with a middling quality lens can hardly beat an old Leica lens, all other things being equal. Same as with the Medium Format--a digital Hasselblad also uses the same lenses as the film version so that really isn't an apt comparison. Also, a $1000 Rolleiflex can produce the same quality of image as the $20,000+ Hasselblads; Hasselblads use Carl Zeiss lenses in the majority, which was also one of the two lenses for the high-end Rolleiflex, the other being the Schneider Xenotar. In fact, most of the work I've seen done on the digital Hasselblads lack character which is especially exacerbated by the Photoshop manipulations. The quality is again dependent on the print method. A dye transfer print is still considered the top of the color genre. Digital is much more convenient and requires less work and technical experience to use with any great advantage. Photoshop is likely easier to adapt to than a traditional darkroom. Darkroom requires a good deal of experience and imagination to utilize to full effect.

 

[GQgeek]

Originally Posted by LabelKing

That has more to do with lens quality than anything else. A DLSR with a middling quality lens can hardly beat an old Leica lens, all other things being equal. Same as with the Medium Format--a digital Hasselblad also uses the same lenses as the film version so that really isn't an apt comparison.

Digital is much more convenient and requires less work and technical experience to manipulate with any great advantage. Photoshop is likely easier to adapt to than a traditional darkroom.

Are you meaning to agree with me?

 

[GQgeek]

Originally Posted by LabelKing

That has more to do with lens quality than anything else. A DLSR with a middling quality lens can hardly beat an old Leica lens, all other things being equal. Same as with the Medium Format--a digital Hasselblad also uses the same lenses as the film version so that really isn't an apt comparison.

Also, a $1000 Rolleiflex can produce the same quality of image as the $20,000+ Hasselblads; Hasselblads use Carl Zeiss lenses in the majority, which was also one of the two lenses for the high-end Rolleiflex, the other being the Schneider Xenotar. In fact, most of the work I've seen done on the digital Hasselblads lack character which is especially exacerbated by the Photoshop manipulations.

The quality is again dependent on the print method. A dye transfer print is still considered the top of the color genre.

Digital is much more convenient and requires less work and technical experience to use with any great advantage. Photoshop is likely easier to adapt to than a traditional darkroom. Darkroom requires a good deal of experience and imagination to utilize to full effect.

Very true, but pros that are switching are finding the the investment worthwhile or they wouldn't switch. You don't just spend 20-35k on a whim for a new gadget that doesn't gain you anything. The smaller formats are obviously much more affordable, even for the very best pro gear.

 

[LabelKing]

Originally Posted by GQgeek

Are you meaning to agree with me?
I don't feel a top digital can beat film notably in color--as above, I've mentioned the Dye Transfer procedure which is still considered the absolute finest in the color genre. Digital is convenient and cheap for the mass production-like work ethic of most professional photographers.

 

[LabelKing]

Originally Posted by GQgeek

Very true, but pros that are switching are finding the the investment worthwhile or they wouldn't switch. You don't just spend 20-35k on a whim for a new gadget that doesn't gain you anything. The smaller formats are obviously much more affordable, even for the very best pro gear.
I suppose they do find it worthwhile in terms of the workload they have. They probably save money in film and chemicals as well as technicians; I suspect Photoshop technicians are probably cheaper to hire than professional darkroom printers.

 

[caelte]

Originally Posted by GQgeek

No, but I'd say a top of the line dSLR can beat any 35mm these days and that a Hasselbad can trump any medium format camera. It took a long time for digital cameras to get to there, but i think you could make a pretty strong argument at this point that digital > film. Why do you think pros have been making the switch in large numbers, even for medium format (for those that can afford to)? It's easier to get the results you want and it improves workflow by a large margin. Even if we say that image quality is the same on a high-end slr or dslr, the dslr brings tons of other features and improvements that make it easier and faster to get things done.
The answer is: an apple isn't an orange. If streamlining workflow is your need, there is no comparison . Digital leaves film in the dust. If your a so-so photographer, digital will make you into a much better one. Sort of a bionic photographer. There are two main components to a camera, the lens and the light tight box. Like LK says, the lens is a very important part. The reason for it: photography creates a facsimile of reality. It's interpretive. Lenses do most of the work in this area. Digital photogaphy was crap until the advent of the low cost, high quality digital SLR. Look at a photography catalog, you'll find plenty of film cameras. Is the pistol better than a shotgun? Depends on your need.

 

[GQgeek]

Originally Posted by caelte

The answer is: an apple isn't an orange.

If sreamlining workflow is your need, there is no comparison .
Digital leaves film in the dust.
If your a so-so photographer, digital will make you into a much better one.
Sort of a bionic photographer.

There are two main components to a camera, the lens and the light tight box.
Like LK says, the lens is a very important part.
The reason for it: photography creates a facsimile of reality.
It's interpretive. Lenses do most of the work in this area.
Digital photogaphy was crap until the advent of the low cost, high quality digital SLR.

Look at a photography catalog, you'll find plenty of film cameras.

Is the pistol better than a shotgun?
Depends on your need.

Obviously the lens plays a huge role. You must think I'm completely marsupialed to feel a need to point that out... However, there are excellent lenses for both film and digital systems. Neither system has an advantage in this regard. Last I checked we weren't comparing Leica film cameras & lenses to digital point and shoots or dslrs with kit lenses... Canon, Nikon and Olympus all have very good pro lenses. And if you throw-in the fact that the best pro lenses now have VR/IS and you don't need a freakin' tripod everytime you want to shoot something, the advantage goes to digital in terms of being better overall, but for the rest of the discusion I'll stick to IQ.

For the sake of being argumentative, to say that digital photography was crap until low cost high quality dslrs came in to play doesn't make any sense based on your own argument. I thought you were saying that the lenses were the difference?

The pro lenses are definitely not low cost. The fact is that for top-quality IQ you're gonna need at least a mid-end body (d80, canon 30d, olympus e-510) and high-end glass in the same way that for film you'd need a good body, great film (fuji velvia is what I always see mentionned), good development, and high quality optics.

To reiterate, digital bodies have surpassed the point where the technology is a barrier to results equal to or better than the best of film. Whether a lens is designed for APS-C, 4:3, Canon's 35mm digital sensor, or 35mm film, there's no reason why film should have any advantages. In fact, now that digital cameras have sufficient resolution, they actually blow film away in most areas.

A concept you see discussed a lot is apparent image quality or AIQ, which results from a combination of spatial resolution and signal to noise ratio. This is because noise has a large effect on perceived quality. A noisy high resolution image looks terrible. Even when comparing digital cameras of relatively low resolution, the increased SNR has a large impact on what is perceived as the final quality of the image. So all else being(optics etc), at iso 100 a body like the Canon 30D,Nikon D80, or better will have very similar results to shooting on fujichrome velvia 100. Even though these 10ish MP cameras can't resolve the resolution of 35mm, their SNR puts them in the same ballpark as the very best of film in terms of AIQ at ISO 100. As soon as you raise the ISO to 200, or go with a better digital body like the Mark III (16.7MP), it becomes essentially a no-contest fight in favor of digital.

So in terms of IQ, a good DSLR is pretty much equal to shooting on Velvia 100 at ISO 100. This wasn't always true. And again, optics are optics. They're just bending light so that it hits the film or sensor. At ISOs above 200 there's a clear advantage in favor of digital due to the much better SNR. Combined with a high quality, high MP sensor, and it's no-contest.

For amateurs, films advantages remain in the medium and large formats. As LK said, a rolliflex is much cheaper than any of Hasselbad's 22-39 MP medium format cameras. You would have to be a pro that generates revenue from his work for it to make any sense whatsoever.

The digital vs. 35mm war is over though and digital is clearly capable of producing better images in the vast majority of situations. And this isn't just me talking out of ******. There has been a lot of rigourous testing to demonstrate these claims.

 

[caelte]

Originally Posted by GQgeek

Obviously the lens plays a huge role. You must think I'm completely marsupialed to feel a need to point that out... However, there are excellent lenses for both film and digital systems. Neither system has an advantage in this regard. Last I checked we weren't comparing Leica film cameras & lenses to digital point and shoots or dslrs with kit lenses... Canon, Nikon and Olympus all have very good pro lenses. And if you throw-in the fact that the best pro lenses now have VR/IS and you don't need a freakin' tripod everytime you want to shoot something, the advantage goes to digital in terms of being better overall, but for the rest of the discusion I'll stick to IQ. For the sake of being argumentative, to say that digital photography was crap until low cost high quality dslrs came in to play doesn't make any sense based on your own argument. I thought you were saying that the lenses were the difference?

The pro lenses are definitely not low cost. The fact is that for top-quality IQ you're gonna need at least a mid-end body (d80, canon 30d, olympus e-510) and high-end glass in the same way that for film you'd need a good body, great film (fuji velvia is what I always see mentionned), good development, and high quality optics. To reiterate, digital bodies have surpassed the point where the technology is a barrier to results equal to or better than the best of film. Whether a lens is designed for APS-C, 4:3, Canon's 35mm digital sensor, or 35mm film, there's no reason why film should have any advantages. In fact, now that digital cameras have sufficient resolution, they actually blow film away in most areas. A concept you see discussed a lot is apparent image quality or AIQ, which results from a combination of spatial resolution and signal to noise ratio. This is because noise has a large effect on perceived quality. A noisy high resolution image looks terrible. Even when comparing digital cameras of relatively low resolution, the increased SNR has a large impact on what is perceived as the final quality of the image. So all else being(optics etc), at iso 100 a body like the Canon 30D,Nikon D80, or better will have very similar results to shooting on fujichrome velvia 100. Even though these 10ish MP cameras can't resolve the resolution of 35mm, their SNR puts them in the same ballpark as the very best of film in terms of AIQ at ISO 100. As soon as you raise the ISO to 200, or go with a better digital body like the Mark III (16.7MP), it becomes essentially a no-contest fight in favor of digital. So in terms of IQ, a good DSLR is pretty much equal to shooting on Velvia 100 at ISO 100. This wasn't always true. And again, optics are optics. They're just bending light so that it hits the film or sensor. At ISOs above 200 there's a clear advantage in favor of digital due to the much better SNR. Combined with a high quality, high MP sensor, and it's no-contest. For amateurs, films advantages remain in the medium and large formats. As LK said, a rolliflex is much cheaper than any of Hasselbad's 22-39 MP medium format cameras. You would have to be a pro that generates revenue from his work for it to make any sense whatsoever. The digital vs. 35mm war is over though and digital is clearly capable of producing better images in the vast majority of situations. And this isn't just me talking out of ******. There has been a lot of rigourous testing to demonstrate these claims.
I'll put it a different way so you don't blow a fuse. I'm not arguing one is better than the other.( I don't know how often I have to say this.) All I'm saying is: some see a difference in the final product that doesn't seem to to be discernible to others, yourself included. I think your argument is with LK because he believes that film is better. LK is an artist and I see his point . I've seen alot of photography by members on this forum. LK's work stands out for a reason. Maybe it would be useful to listen and try and find out why this is the case.

 

[GQgeek]

Originally Posted by caelte

I'll put it a different way so you don't blow a fuse.

I'm not arguing one is better than the other.( I don't know how often how I have to say this.)
All I'm saying is: some see a difference in the final product that doesn't seem to to be discernible to others, yourself included.

I think your argument is with LK because he believes that film is better.

LK is an artist and I see his point .

I've seen alot of photography by members on this forum.
LK's work stands out for a reason.
Maybe it would be useful to listen and try and find out why this is the case.

First of all, I don't think I've seen any images on this forum from a mid to high-end dslr with high-quality optics, so if that's the basis of your comparison of film vs. digital as it relates to IQ, then it's not valid. LK for his part hasn't said what he's using, but I'm gathering he's using some high-quality leica gear with good optics and possibly a medium format camera.

My point is that technically, the differences at iso 100 are nil if you have good equipment on either side. In the digital realm you still have to spend a lot on your camera body to get film's resolution, but combined with the noise-factor, you can get better results at a lower resolution with digital. A 10MP dslr will outperform a film-based 35mm camera at ISO > 200. At ISO =100 they will be very very similar, with the edge going to film although the differences will be extremely negligable. If you step-up the MPs by a little, any advantage film had at low ISOs is erased.

Ultimately, the composition of LK's shots may be better, but don't tell me you can see a difference in IQ on your 72dpi screen based on images that have been compressed and resized for posting on the forum because that would be complete bs. Not only are you looking at completely different images, but the quality of the optics likely differ, everyone used different compression settings, different people may have better or worse technical skills (choosing iso, exposure), etc.

I'm sorry, but the thinking that film is still inherently better than digital is just left-over thinking from an era where digital sensors hadn't matured to the point they are at now.

 

[caelte]

I'm sorry, but the thinking that film is still inherently better than digital is just left-over thinking from an era where digital sensors hadn't matured to the point they are at now.

You don't have to be sorry, your correct. Once again, I'm not referring to the technical aspect of what renders reality in the most precise way. It's about the quality of that rendering. Some older lenses used with film have qualities that are unique. When combined with wet process printing techniques they excel. I don't think this is a secret. I don't know what this guy is using now. Here is a photo of one of his cameras and his website URL. http://www.alastairthain.com/ BTW, I don't think you are a marsupial. Can your really blow smoke out your ass?

 

[GQgeek]

Well from your first comment on quality of lenses that's what it sounded like or I wouldn't have gone in to it on IQ.

Artistically, maybe there's stuff you can do with film that can't be done with digital but I really don't know because it's just not my thing. This thread is about climaxed technology though and the majority of people don't use their cameras that way. Then again, some people are pretty damned good with photoshop. Anyway, since we're in general agreement, I'll stop.

One last thing though. I'd like to see large format do this. It's pretty impressive. It probably would have been a lot easier with a hasselbad but I think the guy was just trying to show what could be done with digital.

 

[LabelKing]

Originally Posted by GQgeek

Well from your first comment on quality of lenses that's what it sounded like or I wouldn't have gone in to it on IQ.

Artistically, maybe there's stuff you can do with film that can't be done with digital but I really don't know because it's just not my thing. This thread is about climaxed technology though and the majority of people don't use their cameras that way. Then again, some people are pretty damned good with photoshop. Anyway, since we're in general agreement, I'll stop.

One last thing though. I'd like to see large format do this. It's pretty impressive. It probably would have been a lot easier with a hasselbad but I think the guy was just trying to show what could be done with digital.

That seems like something someone did with limited digital technology, piecing together various images to make one large one.

You can do that with film too, using spliced negatives and such.

 

[caelte]

Originally Posted by GQgeek

Well from your first comment on quality of lenses that's what it sounded like or I wouldn't have gone in to it on IQ. Artistically, maybe there's stuff you can do with film that can't be done with digital but I really don't know because it's just not my thing. This thread is about climaxed technology though and the majority of people don't use their cameras that way. Then again, some people are pretty damned good with photoshop. Anyway, since we're in general agreement, I'll stop. One last thing though. I'd like to see large format do this. It's pretty impressive. It probably would have been a lot easier with a hasselbad but I think the guy was just trying to show what could be done with digital.

I don't think we are in general agreement. I've never disagreed with your premise. You've just not allowed my perspective. A photo has to pull you in to be successful. It doesn't matter how it was made. I like the overlooked , it's where I make my living. What the majority like or use is of little interest to me. What does hold interest for me is the unexpected and the unusual and alot of that is now in the past. Older technologies have something to offer.

 

[Nantucket Red]

Digital produces pixels.
Film produces grain.
For me, it's that simple. They are two fundamentally different media, period.