Digital pictures suck

[phantom309]

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

That's absolutely true, but a Canon CMOS digital kicks the hell out consumer-grade print film, assuming the same glass - especially at the higher ISO's.

I don't shoot film at all anymore, but I do miss Provia, Velvia and Tri-X.

 

[Lucky]

I can say as a professional photographer than digital has easily surpassed film by now. Film only has digital beat in terms of dynamic range.

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: phantom309

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

That's absolutely true, but a Canon CMOS digital kicks the hell out consumer-grade print film, assuming the same glass - especially at the higher ISO's.

I don't shoot film at all anymore, but I do miss Provia, Velvia and Tri-X.

thats not true the grain from high ISO film is much more appealing then the color noise you get from CMOS and CCD digital chips, however teh D2X seems to lack much color noise as its pretty much monochromatic, which is much more like film and much easier to deal with

 

[TechnoKid]

Originally posted by: 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.

True. Vinyl is better sound quality than CD, however, with the advent of SACD and DVD-A, the sound quality advantage of vinyl over a "CD" like format is becoming smaller. I personally see SACD taking over as the new SQ format. I've never really liked CD's dynamic range.

The SQ advantage of vinyl has some to do with sampling, CDs are limited to 44,100 snapshots per second, which are converted to one of 65,536 possible values. Vinyl isn't 'limited' in this regard because it is analog, it has an 'infinite' capture.

Google: vinyl OR LP "better than" sound CD
to find out more.

 

[ProviaFan]

What some people overlook in comparisions of film formats is that as you move up beyond 35mm, the lens resolution generally decreases. What this means is that if you drum scan a 35mm film at 6000DPI, and a 8x10 film at 6000DPI, and zoom in to 1:1 on each of them, the 8x10 is going to be much less "sharp" than the 35mm. However, this lack of resolution in lenses for larger formats does not offset the great amount of extra film area that one gets in exchange, such that while the 22MP Phase One P25 kills 35mm film (and some say 645 also), 8x10 large format film kills the P25.

The notion that digital can't produce accurate colors seems a bit absurd, when you consider the extensive options available with color charts and calibration software that, if needed, will probably make "digital" more accurate than Kodachrome (which I didn't think was 100% spot-on when I shot it once for the novelty).

Personally, I shoot a D1 which I bought used for US$500. My ancient Mamiya 35mm camera with its ancient lenses still beats the D1 in resolution, but for what I do the other numerous advantages of digital capture outweigh the resolution advantages of film (and I can always load up some Velvia if I need to do a high detail landscape in one shot). If I could afford a D2x, I wouldn't shoot film at all (John Shaw, among others, doesn't).

 

[myusername]

Originally posted by: ProviaFan
The notion that digital can't produce accurate colors seems a bit absurd, when you consider the extensive options available with color charts and calibration software.

Under tightly controlled lighting conditions with high end equipment, digital does pretty well. Remove either of those factors, and it is still a big problem, especially with skin tones.

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: myusername
Under tightly controlled lighting conditions with high end equipment, digital does pretty well. Remove either of those factors, and it is still a big problem, especially with skin tones.

With properly set PRE white balance on my D1, the colors don't seem very bad (which is surprising given the D1's reputation); I can't imagine newer cameras being any worse. With that said, most transparency films don't exactly handle color shifts in the best way, unless you feel like carrying a color temperature meter and a big set of color correction filters.

Basically, I haven't seen or heard about from other digital shooters with higher end gear, the massive color problems that you talk about. Now, if you're referring to bad color in compact P&S digitals, then I have to ask if you think that the kind of folks who would use those would care enough to be carrying the aforementioned color temperature meter and CC filters if they were shooting film?

 

[KingNothing]

I hope there's a money bet involved if you're willing to spend money to print pictures at Wal-mart just so you can prove your friend wrong about the merits of digital vs. film. Because otherwise...don't you think that's just a little petty?

 

[CraigRT]

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

I say 2.

I never do full printouts, and my 3.2mp S230 is more than enough.

 

[NTB]

One article on the issue

There's another one I'm looking for; if I find it I'll link it.

Nate

 

[NTB]

found it

Nate

 

[DBL]

Originally posted by: Anubis
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

Actually, the Foveon chip produces a 3mp image from ~10 million photosites compared with say a Canon 20D which produces an 8.2mp image from ~8.2 million photosites.

However, the fact that the 20D resolves better detail than the Foveon chip means that Bayer Interpolation is a lot more valuable than people give it credit for. There is a lot to be said for capturing and processing an image in the same way the human eye creates an image.

That's why in tests the Foveon chip displays the resolution of a 4-7MP (Depending on the subject) Bayer Sensor. IOW, it gives it less than double the resolution while needing double the number of photosites. This can be attributed to the value of Bayor Interpolation. This coupled with the fact that the pace of the technology doesn't seem to be able to keep up with CMOS and CCD Bayer technology, makes the future pretty dim for Foveon.

Foveon was exciting when it debuted but it really hasn't lived up to its hype.

BTW, I'd be willing to bet that my 20D ISO1600 and 3200 can out-resolve any 35mm color film available.

 

[myusername]

Originally posted by: DBL
BTW, I'd be willing to bet that my 20D ISO1600 and 3200 can out-resolve any 35mm color film available.

It may be able to out-resolve under ideal conditions (though if you can think of a way to test this I will take that bet), but when you go to print a 20+ inch wide print, it will *look* digital, as compared to film, which will simply look grainy. This is largely offensive to people who have been raised with film. Also, under less than ideal conditions, there a whole host of other previously mentioned problems.

I suspect that in another generation, even assuming no more advances in the technology, this would be less of an issue, since people of that generation will be used to seeing digital artifacts, rather than film grain.

That said, I would purchase an 8MP or greater SLR when the price was comparable to a similar film camera. Obviously if I made a living doing photography, I would already have one, since the return would outweight the cost.