Film or Digital

[jackthrt3]

When I find myself in Photoshop with Digital images moving out of focus of photography and into modern art or just back to where I started from in the middle of psychedelics. Yes. I think this digital trip is over for now.
A few rolls of Velvia 50 and my Nikon F3 has freed me from the other side of a raw tiff jpeg. I almost forgot about developing my own Cibachrome prints. I think digital does have it's boundaries in the photography world the same way painting isn't lumped in with photography or sculpture.

[bruce46]

I am new to photography and I have just bought a camera from eBay. Before I decided to which one, film or digital, I would settle to start my new hobby, I have been reading a lot of comments from enthusiasts who are into this thing for a long time. Their suggestion is to start with film because as a beginner, you will learn much more than to start with digital. My feeling at that time also was to go with film. The camera I bought was Canon EOS Rebel T2 and it is still in transit as of now.

[chucky7]

It looks like so many of you really like to use your film cameras. I work with many photographers (ie: jackthrt3) to convert their slides into a digital format and can tell you that many other photographers feel the same way about the limitations fo digital cameras. I wonder if some of the manufacturers that have totally stopped making film cameras (ie: Kodak) will bring those product lines back. http://www.DVDYourMemories.com

[gilp]

How about FIGITAL or DILM ?

[jackthrt3]

I suggest this guy for quality work when you start shooting film again.

http://www.dvdyourmemories.com/scanning.html

[todd_port]

I don't have any good technical reason to use film. I just like my old Nikon F and other assorted film cameras. Very quaint and very cool. Like driving an old muscle car from the 60's -- good for a hobby, not likely to win nascar.

[bruce46]

Just copy it from the product description of the merchant who sells a film camera on eBay. I just thought it would contribute to the argument between film and digital.

Why Film is Not Out

Do you know that digital photos are not admissible in court? Do you know that digital photos are rarely accepted in passports? Have you ever asked why X-Rays still uses film? or Why is Micro-Filming of documents still widely used? The answer is simple, film is a media which cannot be manipulated without a trace. A film is 100% representative of the printed image. An x-ray film is 100% representative of one's health condition.

Photographic film still offers the highest quality in photography. Its resolution cannot be surpassed by any digital camera today and in the next century. A standard 35 mm film (ISO 1007 - 135 film) with a dimension of 24mm x 36mm offers 255 Million Dots (known in the digital age as Mega Pixels or MP) which is based from Kodak's standard tests wherein film resolves at 550 line pairs per mm of image. The 255 MP value was computed as:

((26mm x 550) x (36mm x 550)) /1,024,000 = 255 MP

Compared to the highest resolution digital camera as of 07/16/2007 at 16.7 MP which is the Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II which cost ± $US 6,000.00 the digital camera is only 6.55% of the film's resolution. The film's authority can be appreciated in big applications such as wall size images and building size billboards to name a few. This is also the reason why movies still uses film because the highest digital resolution [cannot be appreciated when projected and expanded into the silver screen.

So there, unless digital can come up close to film in terms of resolution, then the latter is here to stay.

[jackthrt3]

Just copy it from the product description of the merchant who sells a film camera on eBay. I just thought it would contribute to the argument between film and digital.

Why Film is Not Out

Do you know that digital photos are not admissible in court? Do you know that digital photos are rarely accepted in passports? Have you ever asked why X-Rays still uses film? or Why is Micro-Filming of documents still widely used? The answer is simple, film is a media which cannot be manipulated without a trace. A film is 100% representative of the printed image. An x-ray film is 100% representative of one's health condition.

Photographic film still offers the highest quality in photography. Its resolution cannot be surpassed by any digital camera today and in the next century. A standard 35 mm film (ISO 1007 - 135 film) with a dimension of 24mm x 36mm offers 255 Million Dots (known in the digital age as Mega Pixels or MP) which is based from Kodak's standard tests wherein film resolves at 550 line pairs per mm of image. The 255 MP value was computed as:

((26mm x 550) x (36mm x 550)) /1,024,000 = 255 MP

Compared to the highest resolution digital camera as of 07/16/2007 at 16.7 MP which is the Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II which cost ± $US 6,000.00 the digital camera is only 6.55% of the film's resolution. The film's authority can be appreciated in big applications such as wall size images and building size billboards to name a few. This is also the reason why movies still uses film because the highest digital resolution [cannot be appreciated when projected and expanded into the silver screen.

So there, unless digital can come up close to film in terms of resolution, then the latter is here to stay.

Good information Thanks!

[grabus]

For film production is important to have the right color resolution and it can only be obtained by film.

Digital is much cheaper but involves up to four times the processing to reproduce the same level of color as Film does in one pass.

[kubidlo]

I bought Nikon F100 and now I waiting for first of photos, by now I used only D70s.
When I will do some scans I will insert on my gallery

http://www.pbase.com/kubidlo

Regards Petr

[jypsee]

gave away all my film gear and then last summer I scanned some old negatives and realized how much different film looks compared to digital..
http://www.pbase.com/jypsee/protest

so, now I do both...often in the same session...