The Daily Whim
Fair and Unbalanced
Sat. Dec 13, 2003
The Eternal Debate: Film versus Digital
The Eternal Debate: Film versus Digital – Glenn at Instapundit decided to start my Saturday with a little photographic jolt: ”Would Ansel Adams have gone digital? Interesting question, which sets off an interesting discussion on Slashdot.”
Poor Ansel. He always seems to get dragged into these debates, even though it’s been 25 years since he could participate in them. And I’m probably too ill to respond to this. But I can’t stop myself, so blame any feverish rhetoric on the flu.
Glenn says, ”I’m skeptical, myself. I’m very enthusiastic about digital cameras, and they’re especially great for the web, but film is still a lot better in terms of quality.”
A lot better? If you’re planning on making 36×48 inch poster-sized prints, then yes, film might be better. But 35mm film won’t get you there, and for 99.8% of people, 35mm is their only option. For anything bigger, your alternative is to spend five figures on medium or large format cameras, lenses, film backs, etc., and a high quality large format scanner. Or hope that those things are available for easy rental in your home town.
Even then, you will be investing significant money into a clearly terminal technology. If you want to make archival prints up to 13×19 inches (as large as 99% of people will ever want), a good 35mm Digital SLR will outperform film.
”In fact, I was recently looking at these pictures by photographer Naomi Harris, and I noticed that pictures taken with film look better, even on the web. Harris is a purist—she uses medium-format film, and no photoshop—but even on the web the colors and detail in these pictures are striking.”
”Harris is a purist.” ’Nuff said. I don’t know her, so this may not be true in her case, but I know other photographers who call themselves that. A purist is sometimes someone who has closed their mind to new options, because they are so latched to the past. To their credit, they’ve found a path that ”works,” and are reluctant to stray from it. But anyone who refuses to use Photoshop is severely limiting themselves for no ”traditional” reason. Photoshop provides far more control of contrast and tone—traditional darkroom controls—than you can ever get from an enlarger in any darkroom. Using new and better tools isn’t cheating, it’s smart.
”She told me that a number of magazine people she works with think that scans from film look better than native digital images in the same resolution, though they’re not sure why, exactly.”
I’ve had the opposite experience. Clients want digital because it is quick and clean. Shoot a blue sky with 35mm film, and blow it up to a large print, then do the same thing with a good digital SLR. One will be a continuous graduated tone of blue, silky smooth, and the other will be a dotted representation of blue, created by the film grain.
”Back when I was a photographer (and, briefly, a professional one) we told ourselves that 35mm film was as good as medium- and large-format in most applications. I believed it until I did some large-format work. When you see the kind of detail in an 8×10 contact print—or even an 8×10 print from a 4×5 negative—you realize how untrue that is. Now we’re telling ourselves that the newer breed of high quality digital SLR cameras produces pictures that are as good as 35mm. I don’t think that’s true, either, and I’m sure that the quality can’t touch medium-format film.”
First of all, the linked camera is the VW Beetle of Digital SLR’s … though a very good camera, it’s currently the very bottom of the line. Just the same, I have a 6 MP camera that makes tack sharp 13×19 inch archival prints, sharper and cleaner to my eye than any 35mm film result (more archival than standard C-41 prints, as well).
Secondly, people who’ve extensively tested (and shoot daily with) both digital SLR’s and medium format cameras seem to have a different opinion: ”Is the D60 better than 35mm film, and does it (and similar 6MP DSLRs) start to come close to medium format quality? For many the answer to the first question is yes. When all of the factors are weighed in the balance the D60 really does give scanned 35mm film a run for the money in terms of image quality and convenience.”
And medium format? ”If you shoot 645, 6X6 or 6X7 and have a high quality scanner, such as a Nikon 8000ED, Polaroid LS120, Minolta Dimage Multi or Imacon Flextight, [Note: he just listed about $10-20,000 dollars worth of gear you need to beat a 6MP digital SLR] then you are getting image quality and print sizes that digital SLRs can’t yet touch. But, it’s getting close. Give it maybe one more digital camera generation and the tables may well turn for many users and applications.”
That ”one more digital camera generation” is now here. The above quote was made shortly after the D60 came out, about two years ago. Since then, cameras with double the resolution have been released, and they are truly ”high quality digital SLR cameras” that can beat out medium format … at a cost of $6-8,000 (more on that below).
”But I think that film is a long way from being obsolete in applications where quality matters…”
You mean, on commercial shoots, where the client is paying for the product to look as good as possible? Granted, work has been slow this year, but I have not shot one job on film in the past six months. Because once clients get a job shot digitally, most of them don’t want film.
”...I wouldn’t be surprised to see it gain the kind of appreciation that vintage analog gear has gotten in the sound-engineering world.”
There’s a real qualitative difference in the sound that vintage analog effects give you which doesn’t really translate to photography. You can hear a difference with vintage analog. But there’s not a single traditional film ”look” that I can’t give you in a digital form. Just the same, there is some truth in that theory of ”appreciation.” Hopefully, there will always be people who are drawn to the old techniques, and keep them ”alive” in the digital world.
”I suspect that Ansel Adams, who enjoyed experimenting with Polaroid, would have enjoyed experimenting with digital cameras. But I don’t think he would have given up on film.”
Polaroid is bankrupt (and popular professional emulsions are often hard to find now). Kodak is rapidly headed that way, and several of their film lines are expected to be discontinued in the coming year. Agfa is not expected to make it through 2004, and there are even major medium format camera manufacturers in danger of shutting down.
Film is terminal, if only in a financial sense. How long it lingers remains to be seen, but in 2004, you’ll see Canon and Nikon introduce five to seven new digital SLRs, and perhaps two 35mm film bodies between them. Indications are that Nikon will also be stopping production of their 35mm ”point and shoot” lines, as sales drop below a certain number of units.
By the end of 2004, you’ll be able to buy a 3 megapixel cell phone camera, and their booming popularity will destroy the low-end of the digital camera market. Camera makers will respond by increasing the megapixels on lower priced models. You’ll have a choice of buying a 3 megapixel cell phone camera for $300, or a 5 megapixel ”dedicated” digital camera for $300. You’ll be able to buy a digital SLR for less than $700. All by Christmas, 2004.
Capitalism and the competitive marketplace will kill film just as surely as improving digital quality.
And that’s OK (emphasis added by me): ”All photography is about compromise. We’d want 4X5” view camera quality from a Minox if we could get it. But we can’t. So we are forced to use the most appropriate tools for the job at hand. For me this has meant that I use 35mm for wildlife and nature and medium format for landscape. Versatility vs. image quality.”
”But now with the Canon 1Ds I am in what can only be described as a state of bliss. I have the versatility of 35mm equipment and lenses along with image quality that previously was only available from medium format. No, I can’t make 36 X 48” poster sized prints the way I can from 6X7cm scans. But I can make stunning prints up to 20X24”, and that’s just fine for my needs most of the time.”
”Combine this remarkable image quality with the great prints that can be made with an Epson 2200 printer, and at long last the digital promise has been met. So, while I look forward to advances in all areas of imaging technology, for the first time in my 35 year career as a professional as well as fine art photographer I can honestly say that my equipment is producing images that not only meet, but actually exceed my exacting demands. What a thrill!”
”Because I’ve been asked the question several times recently, let me answer it straightforwardly here. I am moving away from medium format and film in general, and expect that I will be doing 90% of my photography with the Canon 1Ds and D60 from now on. I have recently sold my Pentax 645 equipment and while I’m hanging on to the Pentax 67 outfit, I really am not sure when I’ll use it next. It too might get sold soon. My XPan and Leica M equipment stays in the mix because they both offer unique capabilities, but frankly, working digitally has become like a drug; image quality is so superior to film and workflow so much more convenient that it’s hard to look back. Film? Oh ya, I remember film.”
And then there’s this: ”I was (and am) convinced that the [Canon] 1Ds is equal to medium format in on-print resolution, and far superior to film in terms of overall image quality because of the dramatically lower grain / noise at all ISO’s.”
Not long ago, some member of Metafilter bought Matt Haughey the very camera that Glenn linked to, the 6 megapixel Canon Digital Rebel, and he has raved about its image quality. Perhaps some generous Instapundit reader will do the same for Glenn (hey, Christmas is just days away!), so that he might learn the error of his ways, in a hands on manner.
Later: Glenn informs me he’d prefer the Nikon D100 as a gift. But if such a gift is not forthcoming, he might want to hold out a couple of months to buy a Nikon D70, for $500 less.
Previous: «« The Martian Death Flu ««
Next: »» Hidey Holes »»
Peanut Gallery
ELSEWHERE:
facebook, twitter, flickr, del.icio.us
FEEDS:
One Big Feed, Text Only, Photos Only, and on twitter @dailywhimOLD ARCHIVES:
Articles, Photos, Links, Quotes, Road Trips, Downloads, 1996 Olympics, Dad, FujiPossibly Related
Recent Comments
- Reid (I'd like my old well-worn & familiar internet back, please.)
- Paul Scheele (I'd like my old well-worn & familiar internet back, please.)
- Reid (I'd like my old well-worn & familiar internet back, please.)
- Paul Scheele (I'd like my old well-worn & familiar internet back, please.)
- Janis Gore (Halloween Princess Cecily)
- Reid (Brain Matters: My First BrainDay)
ReidStott.com
by Reid Stott
A decade of web design experience. Two decades of photography experience. All available to you, and your project. View my portfolio online, then let's talk about your needs.ReidStott.com
Since I doubt anyone will be buying me a camera, I'll probably hold out for the D70. Or one of the many other cameras about to appear offering better performance at lower prices.
I am by no means any kind of expert, or for that matter, any kind of decent photographer. I also tend toward "vintage" or "classic" in just about every damned thing, from cars to guitars to architecture to home furnishings to....well, you get the idea. But I just had to say that this was a really fine post, Reid. Interesting times we live in, eh?
Holding out for the D70 isprobably not a bad idea, if you're willing to wait until April or so to get it. And if not, in making your choice, don't look as much at the megapixels as the sensor size. For example, a Nikon 5700 will give you a 6 megapixel image about the same resolution as the D100, but it comes from a noisier sensor about a third of the size of the one in the D100, and is made through a much cheaper lens. It's not all about megapixels, it's also about sensor size, and lens quality. The Nikon 5700 goes for about $800, compared to $1500 for the D100, even though they produce an image of the same resolution. And that's a fair estimate of improvement in image quality, as well ... it's twice as good.
You make an excellent case, Reid, thanks. One thing that might be worth reminding the masses is that whatever differences exist in high-end performance between film and digital don't mean a thing if you don't have high quality lenses in front of your camera. Having enough pixels and dynamic range to compete with MF film won't help you if you just have a low-price zoom lens gathering light for you. Today's digitals should be plenty good enough to make full use of the information in the image that a consumer-grade lens creates. I realize you're focussing on pro equipment where good lenses are a given, but for most people my guess is that they'd be better off spending their marginal dollars on a better optics, not a better sensor. I guess I'm convinced that in my own case -- an advanced amateur -- digital would be better. Except that since I have a nice kit of Canon FD equipment, going digital means buying all new lenses. Ouch. I might swing a digital SLR body, but no way can I afford to replace my current lenses with new ones of equal quality, so I'm sticking with film for a while.
Glass is really an issue. It's the primary reason I wasn't tempted to go from the Nikon 990, my "training wheels" digital camera, to the Nikon 5000 when it came out. The little tiny excuse for glass on the front of it seemed to limit the output quality from the beginning. Having shot Canon EOS for 16 years, I knew what kind of lens quality to expect, and knew it would be worth waiting until I could afford a DSLR The article on the 11MP Canon 1Ds concludes "The 1Ds is mercilessly unforgiving of lens quality. It sucks up resolution like a sponge. Give it the highest image quality possible and it will reward you with superlative photographs. Feed it consumer grade zoom lenses and it will be 'OK', but you won't be happy." "In my almost 35+ years as a photographer I have never seen anything like the ability of this camera to separate the wheat from the chaff in lenses. If you have a 1Ds you will now know why you bothered to buy those expensive Canon 'L' series lenses. This camera demands them." I have no experience with that eight thousand dollar camera, but I can sure tell the difference in lens quality even on my 6MP camera. If you spend a grand on a camera, and then slap a $250 zoom on it, your image quality will be forever limited by that lens. Realistically, you have to plan on spending at least as much on lenses as you do on the body, at least, at current DSLR prices. And that makes it an even tougher nut. It was easier for me having shot Canon all this time ... but I also now see how my 16 year old lenses are far exceeded in quality by the ones currently on the market. Let's face it. It's been true for decades. Photography is a damn expensive enterprise, as an amatuer or a pro. It just is, as it has always been. We've just now added another level of obsolescence that we didn't have with film cameras.
I agree that digital might be the wave of the future, but, as an amatuer, It is kinda hard to get something equivalent to my trusty Nikon F4s with fast Nikon lenses , or my Hassy, without spending big$$$$$. So, I have started my digital quest by getting myself a 4MP Canon digital P&S, the S400.
I'm lucky enough to be a complete amateur, and as the history of the word's descendancy from Latin will show, do photography out of love for the process and images. I lean heavily towards film, not from any concerns over how many megapixels can dance on a 35mm frame, but because I just like the way a big negative looks on the lightbox. I've yet to get the same thrill from an image on my monitor as I get from pulling a freshly developed sheet of film from the developing tank and holding it up to the light for the first time. I've also begun playing with digital production of negatives for use with alternative printing processes. Incongruous to use modern methods to enable printing with 19th century technology? Perhaps it is, but it seems to be working. If I can blend the convenience of an inkjet negative with the hands-on experience of coating my own paper, then that just opens another path to follow in my explorations.
"I'm lucky enough to be a complete amateur, and as the history of the word’s descendancy from Latin will show, do photography out of love for the process and images." Well, I'm lucky enough to be a professional, and as the history of the economy's descendancy from Boom to Bust will show, do photography out of love for the process and images. More than any year in my life, 2003 has been a year that photography has been done for love, not money. Mostly by process of elimination. But your comment also "touches" on a big difference in the two approaches: the tactile. Traditional photo processes are incredibly tactile, from the feel of a negative on a lightbox, to the squeak of the stop bath, to the texture and finish of the final print. Digital very much lacks that, until you get to the final output print. And for some people, that understandably detracts from a lot of the appeal of the digital "process." For me, after years struggling in the darkroom to achieve simple effects that are now accomplished with a few clicks, the trade off is worth it. And if you are now outputting digital negatives to take into the darkroom for traditional processes, you may have found the best mix of both worlds.
A film scan at a given resolution could be slightly sharper than a digital camera image at the same resolution just because of the effect of the Bayer mosaic in the latter. (It might be interesting to compare film scans to the output from that weird Sigma camera with the Foveon sensor.)
I am new to the Internet thanks to my son's Christmas generosity. I now have a Canon EOE camera which I am happy with. Three things concern me with Digital after granted using my son's point and shoot. 1. While scanning in his home the screen blurred since your getting a picture of the screen not the actual scene. 2. From what I've read, from you press the shutter button till the time the picture is taken can take up to 1 second. This is is unaccptible to me since I am a rail buff shooting trains going 60 MPH +. 3. My son ,again is chewing up AA batteries like mad. Are these real conerns or not. Help I am on a steep learning curve at this point and need any input I can get at this point. Regards, The Big Jerry
As for the three things that concern you, I don't know what to tell you about [1], because I'm not sure what you mean. With a digital camera, there is no scanning to be done. As for [2], yes, that's a real problem. It's called shutter lag, the length of time between when you push the shutter button and the moment the shutter actually opens. With a 35mm film camera, it is measured in hundredths of a second. With a digital point-and-shoot like your son's, it is measured, at best, in tenths of seconds, and as you've notcied, it can seem a lot longer. For any type of "action" photography, it's a real problem. The solution? Money. In general, the cheaper the digital camera, the longer the shutter lag time will be. I started off with a Nikon 990, a fine digital camera, but essentially a point-and-shoot. It had a shutter lag time of about 3/4 of a second, and it would drive me nuts. All you could do was to try and anticiapte the moment you wanted to shoot. Any kind of action photography was quite problematic. However, I now have the Canon D60, a digital version of their EOS film cameras (which I've used for 17 years). It has a shutter lag time very similar to the EOS film cameras (it's slightly slower due to a slightly slower autofocus system). And luckily, you don't have to pay $2000 to get it, like I did a year ago. You might want to check out the Canon 300D, the "Digital Rebel," which you can find for as little as $800 (body only, uses Canon EOS lenses). And problem [3] sounds real familiar as well. My Nikon 990 ate AA's like candy. It seemed like I couldn't take three dozen pictures without putting in 4 more batteries. It seemed like I was constantly recharging multiple sets of Nicad batteries. But with the Canon D60, one dedicated battery will last me two or three days. Hundreds of pictures. So, yes, you pay a significant percentage more to get a digital SLR rsther than a point and shoot. But that percentage is droipping fast, and you truly do get what you pay for. In addition to a much higher quality image from a larger sensor (a 6 MP image from a "point-and-shoot" will pale in comparison to a 6 MP image from a digital SLR), your money buys you nearly no shutter lag, and much longer battery life. Plus access to better lenses, better accessories, etc.
I recently got a Canon 10D, and have been very pleased with it. It is a 12 bit camera and when one utilizes the extended dynamic range available through the use of the RAW image converter in Photoshop 8 (CS) you can easily beat the range available with color film. You can also rescue over and under exposed images with far more satisfactory results than with color film. I personally will keep my medium and large format equipment but will only shoot B&W film with it. Film may not be dead but color film is on life support and fading. I just hope that Ilford survives the shake-up in professional photography. They have a chance if only because they were dependent on the professional market not the consumer market which is overwhelming color oriented, and pros I know and work with agree that at the present time nothing "sees" light in quite the same manner as B&W film. As for large blow-ups Phase One introduced the H25, a 22 megapixel single shot back for medium format cameras. A 645 camera with a motorized handle is nearly as easy to handle as a 35mm. Cost is the concern as this back will set you back some serious cash. For the landscape and studio/tabletop crowd there is the 48 bit Better Light Super10K-2 with 140 Mega Pixels, and no interpolation of color with 3 CCDs. Sure it's a scanning back but they get faster and faster all the time. "Only" $24K ;–)