Film vs. Digital -- again

There's a thread at Shark Diver Magazine's forums where someone who clearly has no digital experience is blindly throwing around misinformation.

Go over there. Read. Contribute.

I like how Kodak has introduced a new film with "more detail in it". If they'd do that more often we wouldn't have to take the pictures at all!

I thought you and Todd did a fine job. You should send the film photographers to this site, too.

If people would stop to appreciate the size of a pixel, the size of the circle of confusion and the resolving power of the lens they'd get over this 100MP nonsense. It's too bad you can't "post" a 16x20 print in that forum. That would have put an end to it quick.

People like that are going to be around for awhile yet, and hopefully the person seeking the advice will listen to multiple opinions and not rely on just one.

The arguement is pointless - eventually those folks will either cave or just be left behind in digital dust.

As somewhat of a former film luddite, it amuses me to read the pro film camp. The arguments become more spurious with each passing year.

First it was, "How many megapixels do we need to equal film?"

The most common question I get is, "Which is better, film or digital?"

The first time I was asked this, I had to stop and think about it for awhile. My conclusion; I was so stumped by such an innocuous question because it was absolutely the wrong question for anyone to ask.

The correct question is; What system will provide me the results I am trying to achieve given other parameters? (e.g. budget, time, willingness to learn)

It turns out to be the same answer as the most often asked question of 5 years ago, "What film should I use?" The answer was very similar, but easier to comprehend. 1) Whichever film gives you the results you are trying to achieve, 2) depends and/or 3) I don't know what film you should use.

We can talk about resolution all day long, but that's not the issue and never has been. If all we cared about was absolute image resolution, we would all be carrying around an 8x10 view camera. (I have a cheap 4x5) like the old days. Trust me, the 4x5 isn't the best camera for your kid's birthday party or soccor game, but the image quality is tremendous on those rare occassions you focus it right and get the exposure right.

As an example, look at the professional news photographer. Some of us remember the correspondent with is Crown or Speed Grapic 4x5 view camera (OK, it had a rangefinder on the top for simplicity). This camera did and still does produce an incredibly sharp image and detailed image. Think about the information held on a 4"x5" negative. Such images make 35mm film look like finger painting. Yet, I haven't seen a news photographer carrying one of these lately, perhaps only on AMC channel (classic movies).

Ever try loading sheet film in a view camera?

Anyway, the coming of smaller formats provided a better tool for the news photographer. From medium format and down to 35mm, the changes allowed the photographer to accomplish his task in a superior manner to what had previously been used. No one questioned the reduction in theoretical resolution, especially for this type of photography, because maximum resolution/detail just wasn't necessary to achieve the desired goals of the photographer. Newspaper photos are not high resolution output.

Fast forward to today. The advent of digital has now provided news photographer and even better tool to accomplish his assigned tasks. No film mailings, waiting for processing, etc. The weapon of choice is now the D1H, lower resolution than all current DLSRs on the market. The need is for speed.

The whole point is that the issue of... which is better, film or digital.... is irrelevant. OK, all things being equal, which is better? All things can never be equal. The Fuji S2 is very much based upon the Nikon N80, but it isn't an N80. There is a crop factor. There is a noise versus grain issue. Yada, yada, yada. Skip all the issues and look at the results.

Oh, and one more thing about looking at the results. People start looking at prints to distinguish resolution between digital and film. Blow 'em up and take a look. I got a laugh when I read a reviewer write, "I examined the 30"x40" print with my 10x loupe...." How about a double blind test with ordinary people viewing the large print from the anticipated viewing distance. I'll go out on a limb here and say they probably won't notice a difference.

Want maximum resolution and the greatest detail possible to blow up into huge fine art prints? I recommend a nice Sinar 8x10 view camera and any of several Rodenstock or Schneider lenses. Want the absolute portability? Try a Minox. For the rest of us, it is somewhere in between, digital or film.

I think you've all given the self-proclaimed expert far too much credit! His argument is that he can create 100MP scans from an 8X10 print - and that they are inherently better than 30MP slide scans because they have more MP. Well, I guess he should create 20X30 prints and scan those into 500MP files - they should be even better!!! I'm the first to admit that digital isn't quite there yet, but this guy is out to lunch!

I think you've all given the self-proclaimed expert far too much credit!  His argument is that he can create 100MP scans from an 8X10 print - and that they are inherently better than 30MP slide scans because they have more MP.  Well, I guess he should create 20X30 prints and scan those into 500MP files - they should be even better!!!  I'm the first to admit that digital isn't quite there yet, but this guy is out to lunch!

hehehe. Yeah. Well, if it were a "one-on-one" debate, I wouldn't have replied. But since forums are open to the public, I was afraid that people would read it and dismiss digital possibilities simply because of the confidence in which he stated his opinions.

I quit responding as I could clearly see he was not functioning with a full deck of cards and was not going to agree to any explanation that I would venture to offer.

That and I was more concerned that the person realized to buy the best camera for his specific needs not that guys.

I think you've all given the self-proclaimed expert far too much credit!  His argument is that he can create 100MP scans from an 8X10 print - and that they are inherently better than 30MP slide scans because they have more MP.  Well, I guess he should create 20X30 prints and scan those into 500MP files - they should be even better!!!  I'm the first to admit that digital isn't quite there yet, but this guy is out to lunch!

That was really my favorite of his rants, but where do you begin?

He should break up his 100MP scan, print each piece on 8x10, then scan each piece at 100MP. There's no telling how much resolution he could get! Lather, rinse, repeat.

I've never directly dealt with the person in question, but I have seen him before in some other online venues (give it a while to load), and would run screaming from any encounter :ph34r:

That's all I'm saying

Actually, I lied...

His fundamental "understanding" of underwater photography is INCREDIBLY flawed, as illustrated here. Jeff Farris of digitaldiver.info can attest to the pointlessness of trying to have an argument on that level. Reassuringly, I think the original poster on that forum just ignored him after about two posts, and got some good advice that was taken to heart.

Life's too short :freak:

He's back again.

Now one "pro" could not get blue water in their picture so now the learning curve for digital is not faster than film as a result.

I had to reply sarcatically in fun.

Giggle, snort

He linked to the same "tip" as I did above, as evidence of his "cred" with respect to photography. In there he seems to want to take credit for inventing the concept of hyperfocal focusing, and talks about setting your Nikonos up as a point and shoot to use from 6 feet.

Giggle, snort

I've only seen 4 or 5 shots taken by this man, they are all very poor.

Like I said, I think the original poster has noticed that he is a few sheep short of a flock/sandwiches short of a picnic and is ignoring him.

Perhaps his total immersion at the age of 4 is his photographic "rock".

"This is aperture setting 8 (sometimes called f8)". But this one goes to 11!