i have another point to make in the shere endless discussion about film versus digital. i use film and digital cameras for about 4 years now. my first attempt to scan film was with a epson 1200 flatbed with tranny adapter. my first digital camera was a olympus no-idea-what-model. at that time the results from the digital camera where way better than the scans. i went through many models of digital equipment. my last comparable kit was an olympus e10 and a nikon coolscan 4 ed. now the scanner was ahead. what does that mean? nothing actually.

but then, if i now try to print a picture i took with my first olympus digicam, it looks garstly, terrible! if i want to print a picture i took at the same time with my analogue camera, i just rescan the negative and have up to date quality.

MY RESUME: FILM GROWS ON YOU.

digital cameras are really becomming better and are actually quite good right now. but not only the cameras become outdated, their pictures too! i just found a roll of film taken by my grandfather in the early fifties. i gonna scan them and will probably have presentable results.

-- stefan randlkofer (geesbert@yahoo.com), March 21, 2002

Answers

I don't think anyone's trying to say that digital cameras are at this moment as good or better than film. But they're close, getting closer, and will soon be "there". And for two segments of the market whose requirements are less than the pinnacle of resolution--casual snapshooters and news photographers--digital is already more than "there". Since those two segments (unfortunately) account for huge portions of camera equipment sales in the consumer and professional markets, respectively, they are driving the manufacturers to pretty much give up on film-based gear. So we can argue until we run out of breath that film is better, but it's not going to change the course of things.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), March 21, 2002.

Dear Stephan,

You write :

>> MY RESUME: FILM GROWS ON YOU. digital cameras are really becoming better and are actually quite good right now. but not only the cameras become outdated, their pictures too! i just found a roll of film taken by my grandfather in the early fifties. i gonna scan them and will probably have presentable results. <<

I am really saturated with all that ballyhoo about digital vs. silver halide image. So what’s the real meaning of your assertion?

First anybody could see by his own eyes not a single present digital camera (unless you refer to some large or medium format backs with very high definition and generally working in at least three passes like scanners, so only good for still subjects and having astronomical prices) is able to deliver the definition silver halide film can deliver since many years. So, if they now could be fully compatible with web use (72 dpi being the generally accepted definition regarding to the one of the monitors we have) or – for the best of them – with the 300 dpi required by offset printing process they are unable to beat classical cameras everywhere else. Hence, if you want to print high quality images at a respectable format you need to use an “analogical” camera !…

Second, using a good film scanner with 4000 dpi resolution, it is entirely possible to print any silver halide image (newly taken or taken even more than a century before) at the same level of detail and quality you can obtain with classical wet darkroom technique on a silver halide paper (or even better or at least with less tests) and when your print on a high definition printer is considered optimal, repeat the process indefinitely and stock the image ready to print on a much less fragile support than the silver halide film (so the point to know if the print is itself of archival quality is rather irrelevant).

What does it means ?

Taking digital picture is still not a good way when you want your image to be used in a process where maximal definition is required because present digital cameras are not able to record it with sufficient definition. So unless your requirements do not force you into preferring speed to quality stay with the silver halide film to record your images. You can ever produce a perfect low definition version for the web or printing on a newspaper or magazine from the original high definition image.

When it goes to print your images on a paper support, you have now the choice between using the classical wet dark room technique and the new digital one if you have a scanner using the appropriate definition. The result will generally equals or better (particularly with color pictures) what you get with a wet dark room technique (for B&W use the two-color option in Photoshop and warm of cold the tone as if you use the corresponding variant of photographic paper and the result will also be similar to a very good classical print).

For the future, it is absolutely certain the silver halide film will be discontinued. And nobody should be afraid of it. It is not the first time Photography uses a different support. Wet plates used during the Civil War years has been long discontinued and photography is still around, for example.

The real goal is to maintain the silver halide quality with the new digital technology, so not to permit the discontinuation of silver halide films before the digital cameras reach an equivalent definition. Nothing less, but nothing more.

I am in the process to switch from silver halide printing to full digital printing and I have already done so with my Medium Format films as the flat bed scanner I have permits it for A4 and even A3 formats. The results are rather convincing both in B&W (much better than a classical print on “plastic” papers and almost identical to the present high grade classical papers) and in color (absolutely better than anything but the finest professional labs at astronomical prices). I will switch fully to dry dark room for 35 mm format as soon as I will be able to secure a 4000 dpi film scanner.

But I won’t buy a low resolution piece of crap of a digital camera which has an abysmal value for money ratio for the present time.

This said, when the digital cameras will reach the silver halide film definition, I will switch to fully digital photography as soon as possible.

The fact “film grows on you” as you wrote is simply a consequence of the poor level reached today by digital cameras in front of what classical cameras are able to produce. It is not linked in anyway to the different nature of silver halide film.

So the idea the M series and the use of Leica lenses on a digital camera is not so stupid, just a bit in advance to the present state of the art of digital technology.

Friendly

François P. WEILL

-- François P. WEILL (frpawe@wanadoo.fr), March 21, 2002.

my point is, that pictures taken with a digital camera today won't be better in a few years. scans taken in a few years of todays negatives will improve with the technological advance of scanning devices. i do not care that much whether film survives, once the digital technology surpasses it, i'll use it. i see my photography as a body of work, which i like to come back to after a few years. my first generation digital photos are terrible to look at today, though i accepted the quality at that time. with film i manage to achieve up to day quality with yesterday's images.

-- stefan randlkofer (geesbert@yahoo.com), March 21, 2002.

If the day ever comes that there is a digital camera with analog controls, powered by a couple of A-76's, impervious to environmental extremes, gives TRUE (no bullshit!) INSTANTANEOUS RESPONSE, and produces results with a "character" equal to or better than Tri-X, with true archival quality, then I just might consider an outright switch. But the camera in question had better handle like an M-6! In the meantime, I'm happy with my Nikon 990 for certain applications, like copying fine-art prints to put up on the web, etc. But a digital camera as my "main machine?" Not at this time, thank you!

-- John Layton (john.layton@valley.net), March 21, 2002.

What François said!!!

thanks,

-- Mark (acerview76eus@yahoo.com), March 21, 2002.

Jay very concisely defined the realities, both economical and fuctional, that exist in the film vs. digital debate.

The only real question is "how long"? I suspect that save for the mueseums, film will be gone within the next couple of generations.

In that time frame its use and availabilty will just become increasingly more expensive.

Best,

Jerry

-- Jerome R. Pfile, Jr. (JerryPfile@msn.com), March 21, 2002.

Stefan, you're quite right: which is the better picture? Have a look at some 50s pictures, shot on supposedly "inferior film" (which it was) with supposedly "inferior" cameras and lenses (which is debatable). I am not a great fan of digital's state-ofthe-art-today-obsolete-tomorrow philosophy, but it's still a question of whether of not the image is actually a satisfying one.

-- David Killick (dalex@inet.net.nz), March 22, 2002.

Dear Stephan,

You write:

>> my point is, that pictures taken with a digital camera today won't be better in a few years. scans taken in a few years of todays negatives will improve with the technological advance of scanning devices. <<

While I agree with you about the fact digital camera images taken today won’t improve as time will allow new progresses in digital technology, I don’t when you say the improvement in scanning devices will improve the result obtained when scanning negatives (or slides) taken today. Why? Simply because scanners already authorizing a definition equivalent to the maximum definition of a silver halide film already exist!… You won’t be able tomorrow to extract more information from the film than the film has recorded. A 4000 dpi scanner is already able to “see” and record the grain. The real question is only when such scanners will become affordable enough to be widespread, particularly when it goes to multi-format scanners with such a definition. A chain is no more reliable than its weakest element. If a digital device performs with less definition than the film, hence the definition is limited by this device, but the film itself having a limited resolution, as soon as the digital device reaches this limit, the weak point in the chain becomes the film. The best film in terms of definition doesn’t have an infinite resolution so if a digital device reaches this resolution no improvement of it will allow any progress in terms of the restitution of the information because no more information is extractible from the film.

What might happen in the future is digital cameras will reach a better resolution than the film itself, so digital photography will beat the film and each time this resolution will improve you’ll get an even better (technically speaking) picture. But there is also an absolute limit in usefulness of this improvement: the human eye which has also a definite limit in resolution. To record more information than the human eye is able to record itself would be a total waste of technology. But even reaching such a level, digital devices won’t be able to extract information which was not recorded on the old negatives… These unrecorded information are already lost forever.

Friendly.

François P. WEILL

-- François P. WEILL (frpawe@wanadoo.fr), March 22, 2002.

I must admit that I had not realized until reading this thread just how far digital technology and film scanners have come. The analysis by Francois is truly eye opening. In the February issue of Digital Camera (vol 5, issue 23) on page 39, a reviewer of the Nikon Coolpix 5000 makes this statement, " ... experts generally agree that standard 100 speed 35mm film has a nominal resolution of about 6 megapizels."

If we divide those 6Mp up into the 35mm frame we get about 3000 dots by 2000 dots for the frame. If this is a true statement, then, as Francois says, the 4000dpi scanners can see the grain.

My question is, and I know this is where the flaming starts, what is the point of the truly excellent Leica lenses, if they can produce an optical image finer than the capability of the film to record the image? And for the record, I own an M6 and love it dearly.

My shields are down, be gentle,

Dan

-- Dan Roe (roedj@hotmail.com), April 09, 2002.