Digital pictures suck

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: Anubis
i can tell you for a fact that they are not as good

no 35mm format digital can replicate what you can get when you shoot slide film especially 50 and 100 iso velvia, and kodachrom and no 35mm digital comes close to getting the look of a selenium toned B&W fiber print, even when printed on a pro level printer

they are close but not there yet

Cibachrome 0wns j00

My old man is a slide fan and he's got some imcredible underwater stuff happening (Nikonos V)

He is a big fan of velvia and provia, uses a Nikon for land stuff too but i can't remember which one

most likely an F5

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: shilala

Originally posted by: Anubis
i can tell you for a fact that they are not as good

no 35mm format digital can replicate what you can get when you shoot slide film especially 50 and 100 iso velvia, and kodachrom and no 35mm digital comes close to getting the look of a selenium toned B&W fiber print, even when printed on a pro level printer

they are close but not there yet

Anubis, I saw some "number support" along the way on this topic. Had to do with the number of positions silver particles can take when making a photo from film, and the different sizes of silver particles available that create the never-ending scale of grays in black and whites.
Someone developed a sensor with both large and small pixels, allowing much greater tone definition.
The number of pixels on the sensor was also dramatically increased.
The argument was that this new setup was damn close to being as diverse as film. Turns out that film, in the next few years, will be a disadvantage.
We'll finally have a digital option that is literally better than film (technically).
I'm excited to hear the arguments when the tech specs of digital actually beat film.
It'll be a lot of years before film falls out of vogue, be it inferior or not.

i know what you are talking about as i have read about it as well however its not here yet, and for the time being film > digital

medium and large format are another story, the scanning digital backs for 4x5 cameras thst do 3 passes one for each color and capture something like 100MP can do some pretty amazing things, and they are preob about equal to large format film, however those backs cost anywhere between 7-30 thousand dollars

the medium format backs are around 20-25 MP and cost around 20K the ones that fit hassablads and mamiays, and they are about equal as well at the base ISOs however as soon as you go above ISO 400-600 on most of those the noise becomes an issue

 

[RU482]

I like digital pictures of naked women

 

[shilala]

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: shilala

Originally posted by: Anubis
i can tell you for a fact that they are not as good

no 35mm format digital can replicate what you can get when you shoot slide film especially 50 and 100 iso velvia, and kodachrom and no 35mm digital comes close to getting the look of a selenium toned B&W fiber print, even when printed on a pro level printer

they are close but not there yet

Anubis, I saw some "number support" along the way on this topic. Had to do with the number of positions silver particles can take when making a photo from film, and the different sizes of silver particles available that create the never-ending scale of grays in black and whites.
Someone developed a sensor with both large and small pixels, allowing much greater tone definition.
The number of pixels on the sensor was also dramatically increased.
The argument was that this new setup was damn close to being as diverse as film. Turns out that film, in the next few years, will be a disadvantage.
We'll finally have a digital option that is literally better than film (technically).
I'm excited to hear the arguments when the tech specs of digital actually beat film.
It'll be a lot of years before film falls out of vogue, be it inferior or not.

i know what you are talking about as i have read about it as well however its not here yet, and for the time being film > digital

medium and large format are another story, the scanning digital backs for 4x5 cameras thst do 3 passes one for each color and capture something like 100MP can do some pretty amazing things, and they are preob about equal to large format film, however those backs cost anywhere between 7-30 thousand dollars

the medium format backs are around 20-25 MP and cost around 20K the ones that fit hassablads and mamiays, and they are about equal as well at the base ISOs however as soon as you go above ISO 400-600 on most of those the noise becomes an issue

I'm fuzzy on the difference between color and B&W film, so far as how it works. I have a grasp on how B&W works, but I'm clueless as to how color film works.
I can see why B&W has so many "pixels", b ut not knowing how color film works mechanically, I can't fathom how digital is inferior.
Is digital color inferior because of the finite range of colors? Number of pixels? Some combination of other things?
I know there's a cutoff point where the eye can only make a certain amount of discrimination. I print at 350 dpi because there's no way I (or anyone) can tell a difference in resolution quality beyond that.
Does large format color film hold so much definaition and color range that it can be blown up infinately? Where does it break down and become noisy?
I'm thinking there's got to be an end to it's depth, but I can't relate because I've never seen anything in numbers.

 

[Anubis]

the only color film i can tell you about how it works is kodachrom which is pretty rare now adays because kodak decided to stop processing it

its basically a 3 layered film one for each color channel, none of the color info is kept in the film its all added in the processing through a machine that costs like 500K

nothing and i tell you NOTHING is as accurate as the color you can get from it

with large format its basically more = better, i know from expirence that you can blow a 4x5 negative up to at least 20x30 before you start to see any grain at all, 8x10 negatives pretty much have no limit

one 4x5 negative holds the same amount of data as about 9 35mm negatives
a 8x10 in negative holds as much data as a whole roll of 36 exposures on 35mm film

depending on the exact size of the medium format you are shooting its about 2-3x as much data


digital for color anyway cant reach the saturationlevel of film without work in photoshop it also has a even smaller range it can capture

B&W film can capture about 7-8 zones, zone 1 is pure black zone 10 is pure white
Color slide film gets about 5-6 zones and you need to be spot on in exposure because its extreamly unforgiving

most digitsl sensors can capture about 5 zones and they are baised twards teh shadows, highlight detail vanishes in digital extreamly quickly and theres nothing you can do to get it back, with B&W film through a combo of development and printing you can pull back blown highlights pretty eaisly

 

[myusername]

Color film is silver-halide based and works on same principle as B&W film, except there are three different layers. In each layer, a different color of dye is couples with the silver halide to form a color image.

Digital color is inferior because of combinations of limitations in technology, including resolution. One of the other significant problems would be the bayer grid used in most digital cameras - foveon developed (and sigma adopted) a technology that may alleviate this problem.

The biggest difference between film and digital is exposure latitude.

Color film has a maximum resolution of about 6000dpi when speaking in terms of discerning minute detail unavailable at lower resolutions, though at that resolution you are looking at a *very* grainy image.

 

[yhelothar]

Depends on the CCD image size.
Even the cheapest film camera is 35mm
To get a digital camera that can take equivalent of 35mm requires expensive DSLRs.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: Connoisseur
I think digital images are the equal to normal images only with a steady hand. I have a Canon Powershot A95 and i've owned film cameras before. The A95 has awesome images as long as my hand doesn't shake too much whereas film cameras are a bit more forgiving as far as small vibrations. If you either have a steady hand or a tripod then digital cams are easily the equal of their film counterparts. Of course, if you want the best of both worlds, some companies do sell a negative scanner. A friend of mine owns this. It directly scans the photo negative slides into images as large as 7 or 8 MP. Looks gorgeous.

Nah. 3mm of movement is 3mm of movement to film or a CCD.

 

[Deadtrees]

Originally posted by: Goosemaster
Soem say 6MP is good enough for the general populous..diehards say 24MP

We have 24MP Digicams now so they can all stfu

Megapixels don't mean picture quality. It's all about printable picture sizes as well as more details when you print. 24MP? Somebody planning to make a wallpaper out of a pic?

 

[Deadtrees]

Originally posted by: Connoisseur
I think digital images are the equal to normal images only with a steady hand. I have a Canon Powershot A95 and i've owned film cameras before. The A95 has awesome images as long as my hand doesn't shake too much whereas film cameras are a bit more forgiving as far as small vibrations. If you either have a steady hand or a tripod then digital cams are easily the equal of their film counterparts. Of course, if you want the best of both worlds, some companies do sell a negative scanner. A friend of mine owns this. It directly scans the photo negative slides into images as large as 7 or 8 MP. Looks gorgeous.

Actually, digital cameras do have more advantage in low shutter speed situation as you don't need to physically change films for higher ISO.
Your statement is absoultly false. If you've got problem with taking indoor pictures, try higher ISO setting(Fuji's F10 has ISO 1600 without much noise) or get a Dslr.

 

[Deadtrees]

In terms of highlight/shadow, film cameras are still far ahead of digital cameras. But then again, that's something that doesn't really matter much.

 

[Deadtrees]

Originally posted by: Anubis
i can tell you for a fact that they are not as good

no 35mm format digital can replicate what you can get when you shoot slide film especially 50 and 100 iso velvia, and kodachrom and no 35mm digital comes close to getting the look of a selenium toned B&W fiber print, even when printed on a pro level printer

they are close but not there yet

Photoshop with RAW imaging process?

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: Deadtrees
In terms of highlight/shadow, film cameras are still far ahead of digital cameras. But then again, that's something that doesn't really matter much.

doesnt matter?

do you kno wanything about photography? they are the most inportant parts of just about any photo

and no even shooting raw will not get you past film, clos but its not there yet

 

[TitanDiddly]

Once you get above the 3mp level, laymen won't notice.

 

[vi edit]

Call me crazy, but didn't the OP post almost an identical thread a while back?

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: Deadtrees
In terms of highlight/shadow, film cameras are still far ahead of digital cameras. But then again, that's something that doesn't really matter much.

doesnt matter?

do you kno wanything about photography? they are the most inportant parts of just about any photo

and no even shooting raw will not get you past film, clos but its not there yet

Can you further explain? So far you rattle off a bunch of esotericisms, but you've not quantified exactly what makes film superior. In what capacity is digital deficient? Explain yourself; "close, but it's not there yet" isn't sufficient.

 

[RU482]

Originally posted by: vi_edit
Call me crazy, but didn't the OP post almost an identical thread a while back?

CRAZY CRAZY CRAZY

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: dderidex

Originally posted by: DurocShark
There are aspects of film that digital is only beginning to approach.

There is a "feel", for want of a better term, that film *can* have that digital doesn't yet.

Note I said "can". It takes a true artist to reach it.

And vinyl is still superior to CD, right?

well it is. That is pretty much accepted fact.

 

[shilala]

Originally posted by: myusername
Color film is silver-halide based and works on same principle as B&W film, except there are three different layers. In each layer, a different color of dye is couples with the silver halide to form a color image.

Digital color is inferior because of combinations of limitations in technology, including resolution. One of the other significant problems would be the bayer grid used in most digital cameras - foveon developed (and sigma adopted) a technology that may alleviate this problem.

The biggest difference between film and digital is exposure latitude.

Color film has a maximum resolution of about 6000dpi when speaking in terms of discerning minute detail unavailable at lower resolutions, though at that resolution you are looking at a *very* grainy image.

This sounds like good stuff...
Got anything else on the bayer grid? The foveon technology?
Exposure latitude being what, exactly?
Thanks for the 6000dpi comment. That puts things in perspective. I wasn't aware that film was that resolute.
6000 dpi on an 8x10 negative anubis mentioned=holy fvckin wow.

 

[Deadtrees]

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: Deadtrees
In terms of highlight/shadow, film cameras are still far ahead of digital cameras. But then again, that's something that doesn't really matter much.

doesnt matter?

do you kno wanything about photography? they are the most inportant parts of just about any photo

and no even shooting raw will not get you past film, clos but its not there yet

It matters A LOT to those who are really into photography but for most of people, it just don't matter. What majority of people care is level of noise in ISO settings and color variances. Shadow/highlight is something who's into Dslr cameras care, not those average consumers. We still live in the age where people think megapixel=picture quality.
I'm into photography so I do care about H/S but that's something most of people don't even know what they're.

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: Deadtrees
In terms of highlight/shadow, film cameras are still far ahead of digital cameras. But then again, that's something that doesn't really matter much.

doesnt matter?

do you kno wanything about photography? they are the most inportant parts of just about any photo

and no even shooting raw will not get you past film, clos but its not there yet

Can you further explain? So far you rattle off a bunch of esotericisms, but you've not quantified exactly what makes film superior. In what capacity is digital deficient? Explain yourself; "close, but it's not there yet" isn't sufficient.

im pretty sure i said that it

1) has more resolving power
2) finer grain
3) can capture a wider set of tones
4) its a hell of alot cheaper
5) Prints better
6) for black and white there is a feel digital cannot represent, this is actually hard to just tell you, you most likely would have to know what Selenium toned B&W prints look like, however most fine art B&W has been selenium toned
7) more accurate color

 

[Viper GTS]

I would assume it's common knowledge that film is still superior to film.

I've never seen anyone try to argue otherwise.

"For most people" doesn't cut it, it either is or it isn't.

The best digital pictures (the gigapixel project) are scans of film.

If that doesn't tell you something...

Viper GTS

 

[shilala]

Originally posted by: Anubis
the only color film i can tell you about how it works is kodachrom which is pretty rare now adays because kodak decided to stop processing it

its basically a 3 layered film one for each color channel, none of the color info is kept in the film its all added in the processing through a machine that costs like 500K

nothing and i tell you NOTHING is as accurate as the color you can get from it

with large format its basically more = better, i know from expirence that you can blow a 4x5 negative up to at least 20x30 before you start to see any grain at all, 8x10 negatives pretty much have no limit

one 4x5 negative holds the same amount of data as about 9 35mm negatives
a 8x10 in negative holds as much data as a whole roll of 36 exposures on 35mm film

depending on the exact size of the medium format you are shooting its about 2-3x as much data


digital for color anyway cant reach the saturationlevel of film without work in photoshop it also has a even smaller range it can capture

B&W film can capture about 7-8 zones, zone 1 is pure black zone 10 is pure white
Color slide film gets about 5-6 zones and you need to be spot on in exposure because its extreamly unforgiving

most digitsl sensors can capture about 5 zones and they are baised twards teh shadows, highlight detail vanishes in digital extreamly quickly and theres nothing you can do to get it back, with B&W film through a combo of development and printing you can pull back blown highlights pretty eaisly

Thanks for taking the time Anubis. That's some awesome info.
It's helped me understand a lot of the stuff I've already read. Now for the opportunity to apply some of it.

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: shilala

Originally posted by: myusername
Color film is silver-halide based and works on same principle as B&W film, except there are three different layers. In each layer, a different color of dye is couples with the silver halide to form a color image.

Digital color is inferior because of combinations of limitations in technology, including resolution. One of the other significant problems would be the bayer grid used in most digital cameras - foveon developed (and sigma adopted) a technology that may alleviate this problem.

The biggest difference between film and digital is exposure latitude.

Color film has a maximum resolution of about 6000dpi when speaking in terms of discerning minute detail unavailable at lower resolutions, though at that resolution you are looking at a *very* grainy image.

This sounds like good stuff...
Got anything else on the bayer grid? The foveon technology?
Exposure latitude being what, exactly?
Thanks for the 6000dpi comment. That puts things in perspective. I wasn't aware that film was that resolute.
6000 dpi on an 8x10 negative anubis mentioned=holy fvckin wow.

foveon basically is useing a 3 layered chip to capture each color and then it combigns them much like color film works, their current chip is in teh Sigma SD-10 , its ~10mp, 3.3mp for each color, the tech kind of hit a standstill because IIRC Sigma and fevon signed some deal where the chip could only be used in a sigma camera, i beleive that ends soon so hopefully we will see that tech pushed further

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: Deadtrees
In terms of highlight/shadow, film cameras are still far ahead of digital cameras. But then again, that's something that doesn't really matter much.

doesnt matter?

do you kno wanything about photography? they are the most inportant parts of just about any photo

and no even shooting raw will not get you past film, clos but its not there yet

Can you further explain? So far you rattle off a bunch of esotericisms, but you've not quantified exactly what makes film superior. In what capacity is digital deficient? Explain yourself; "close, but it's not there yet" isn't sufficient.

im pretty sure i said that it

1) has more resolving power
2) finer grain
3) can capture a wider set of tones
4) its a hell of alot cheaper
5) Prints better
6) for black and white there is a feel digital cannot represent, this is actually hard to just tell you, you most likely would have to know what Selenium toned B&W prints look like, however most fine art B&W has been selenium toned
7) more accurate color

Ack, that's my fault. Thanks for repeating yourself on my account.

:thumbsup: