What's the best film - or is it digital?

Bob

I have been digital for over 2 years now. I frequently get asked this question. The real answer is "It depends..." ...on the use of the image. Each has its advantages and disadvantages. And depending on what is needed, one will stand out over the other.

For very large prints to be made, I would shoot film (chrome ideally) and have either drum scans done or create the image direct from the neg. Esp with MF as a 3 scan digital back is not conductive to photographing people. :) I have worked with GF and am very impressed with it, but would not risk a client on it alone. (I would also shoot digital to compare and expand my options).

While I have hardly touched film in over 2 years, I still have my film body and film in the freezer for when it will be needed.

To answer your question "Both sides can't be right can they?" I would have to say "Yes, they can." But it depends on the exact question and who is answering that question (doing the work) and with what. I can answer digital and be right while you may be right to say film for the same job.

Good thing its no longer April 1, or I'd figure this is another Fools day question like years past. :)

David

PS Who is the person that says digital is "better" than film? Define "better." I say it is "different" -- like negative vs chrome. Which of those is "better?" :)

The advantage I see with digital today is its inexpensiveness, lack of muddling fingers on your negatives and prints, quick turnaround to the editor for critical assignments, and for the ADD types, an instantaneous result. My reasons for not picking up a digital system yet are 1> its slowness - the camera has a boot up delay, and extended shutter lag - I think the current 400ms is excessive on current cameras to get the 'moment'. 2> i prefer wide angled lenses that get multipled by a factor of about 2 on digital cams. 3> it is still a close call between the picture quality with Dmax and resolution being at the threshold of 35mm films. I'd wait for the next release of these computers, er, cameras with a 16m pixel rather than 3.1m spec.

BTW, some comparisions I have seen on the net are arbitrary set ups - handheld, diff. position etc. where the subjective evaluation of resolution/contrast/color is inconclusive. In fact one of the sites (discussed in another thread here on a similar subject) the presenter's pictures are contrary to his conclusions. If we have some unbiased netters here with access to both technologies they can shoot a comparitive resolution/color chart and publish their results.

In addition to quality, I think that digital promises functionality that surpasses the potential of film.

As we know, shooting with traditional film involves tradeoffs - based on shutter speed and aperture, the entire film area is given the same exposure thus at times causing lack of detail in shadows and/or washed out highlights.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that digital imaging utimately holds the promise of avoiding this tradeoff by allowing each pixel to be its own metering and exposure system, essentially having each pixel turn off when it has received the proper amount of light needed for a proper exposure, given each pixel’s location in the frame relative to the scene. The result would be something like a mega-pixel storage, “mega-pixel metering” and “mega-pixel exposure” camera.

Is this where others see the future of digital imaging?

No, this isn't an "April 2nd" joke! The point is that some people see the choice of film (and processing for B&W) as one of the most critical aspects of their photography. Clearly going digital removes this choice. The question then is, is that choice really important.

I can see validity in the answer "yes and no".

Nobody disputes the added ease of digital, the lower supply costs, the possibility of technical advances in metering or image stabilization via digital means. My point is whether the lack of choice of "film" will ultimately limit digital for those who think it's a vital factor, or whether digital will inherently be so superior to film in recording information about intensities and color that digital processing will be able to recreate the palette and dynamic range of any film, so removing yet another factor from the equation.

Bob, Are you just setting the stage for an all out debate between the good ole pragmatists and artists? Film is a tool of photography. Digital manipulation of what once was light, is no longer photography. I don't think your question really gets to the foundational issues at hand in this debate. "Digital Photography" is an oxymoron. Photo is from the greek photus for light. It can become the norm, it can rule the consumer market, it can make film difficult to purchase, it can do whatever it pleases, but it is an entirely different endeavor. I wince at these comparisons. Nonetheless, It will take time before "digital photography" will be able to hold a candle to a 6x7 negative. Both sides can't be right because they are playing on different playing fields; both sides can't be wrong either. Why? Because one is photography (the manipulation of light) and one is not photography (it is the manipulation of numbers (numbers are not light)). I think that our safest option is to let them be recognized as entirely different ways of representing the world. The major problem lies in some people insisting that digital be accepted as an indistinguishable method of achieving a representation. And of course, being pragmatic, they have no concern whatsoever for distinguishing the methods they use to achieve their desired ends. This is why people insist that digital is equal to film: They don't know what photography is and do not care to learn. They do not understand, or refuse to understand, that one is light and one is numbers representing light. I have no problem with "digital photography". I have difficulties understanding why people insist it is the same as photography. I have tried to express this before on this website. Unfortunately, my distinction, a distinction that is difficult to upset, was entirely misunderstood by the pragmatic. Was I surprised? No.

I would think that the debates over film will just be transformed into debates over CCS versus CMOS or "Nikon makes a more contrasty array than Canon" ad nausium. Whenever there are more than one option there will have to be a difference (even if its subtle) and that will cause people to have opinions that they'll die for. Of course the flip side to this is that today if you want a more saturated film, it'll cost you a roll of film, as opposed to a camera/array.

The reason for the question is the number of different emulsions available to film users. There are so many different films with different characteristics (slide/print, B&W/Colour, speed, grain, dynamic range, colour saturation, etc.) that it is little wonder that people want to draw upon other photographers experiences in certain circumstances. What the film photographers have is something that the digital photographers can only dream of. Choice!! For example, digital users are limited to the ISO equivalents that have been engineered into their cameras (50-400) and they must pay an enormous amount for "pro" digital cameras that can reach speeds of 1600 or above. While any user of a $200 compact 35mm camera can use pretty well any film speed they like and, for what cost? A few dollars. My little Yashica T4 can handle any film speed from ISO 50 to 3200. I can do prints or slides. Fuji ,Kodak, Ilford, Agfa... anything I want. With my digital cameras...what you Get is what you see!!!

Roger - I disagree. In both digital and "conventional" photography it is the action of light which is at the core of the process. In one case it affects the electrons around a silver atom, in the other case it affects the electrons around a silicon atom. That's the PHOTO aspect of it all. From there on, analog or digital makes no difference in terms of the ART. It makes a difference in terms of the practice, maybe in terms of the final result (print), but I don't see that as a critical difference making one "true photography" and the other a mere manipulation of numbers.

This question really addresses an issue I don't see raised much. Most of the digital concerns seem to be about resolution - do the current cameras have enough pixels to equal 35mm film? I've really seen no discussion of the subtle aspects of color, tonality etc.

I'm not supporting either "side" of the debate and I don't know the answer to my own question. I just see a lot of opionions along the lines of "I used film X and wasn't happy with it". What do you do if you feel the same way about your digital shots, or does that simply not happen?

I have compared, and looked, and gone to seminars. All I know is this. I can offer a portrait client an acceptible 30 x 40 print from a hasselblad negative, of which I can throw that neg in an envelope costing a penny versus some digital storage device that costs alot more. My camera seems to hold its value versus digital cameras losing their value faster than a 286 lost its value when the 386's came out, and I can buy one hell of alot of film for the difference in price between my camera and a new digital camera. Would I love to have a digital camera that offered the same quality as film with the additional benefits of retouching etc. You bet. Have I seen it yet. NO. Is it close. Yes. But next year it will be alot closer and alot cheaper. I will let someone else pay for those R and D costs. Kevin

I'm still a little lost with statements like "digital is close to film" (or will be close to film). What film? If different types of film are so different, what is (or will be) digital close to? All of them?

Well, Bob, point well taken. Is the image that results from the digital process viewable to the light or is it recorded as numbers? Is the printing process in digital photography dependent upon light or numbers? Digital photography does not record light. It records numbers. Can you take that digital image file and further its manipulation using light? Or can you only manipulate it with numbers? Say what you like, they are not the same. A digital camera is pretty worthless without a computer to turn those numbers back into an image. Oh yeah, and that image...it has nothing to do with light, it was made with numbers. Hardly the same.

Roger -- your reasoning leaves a lot to be desired. In a conventional photographic process, light strikes the film and affects silver atoms. In digital photography, light strikes a CCD. Both mediums record the image made by the light. A piece of film records and displays the image using the film itself as a recording device. Each individual piece of film has a density value, which is easily expressed as a number. The density determines how much light is allowed through that piece of film. A digital camera stores these density values as numbers describing how much light is displayed at that point in the image. Whether density values are stored as numbers or as a buildup of silver or pigment, they can (and do) represent the same thing.

The digital process doesn't eliminate light from the 'equation.' On the contrary, you can't view a digital image without light. The light in your computer monitor is displayed according to the numbers specified in an image file, just as the light in a projector is displayed according to the density of the silver molecules or pigments in a piece of film. In either case, something has to 'specify' how much light is displayed at any given point in the image.

I will also argue that the digital method is more permanent over time... the numbers don't change just because they're old, while a piece of film does fade and/or color-shift over time.

These are all old arguments that we've been through before on this site, so forgive me for rehashing them.

Roger, that's a philosophical point. If the end results of "the numbers" is the same as the end result of "the light" (i.e. all digital vs all analog) then does a difference exist? Just how many angels CAN sit on the head of a pin?

Of course if the end result is different then the process does count. Right now, I'm sure there is a difference if you have educated eyes and view the final print from a distance rather than with a magnifying glass. Most people viewing an 8x10 from 2ft away could not tell you whether of not it was an analog or digital print.

Some would say CDs do not contain real music. All they contain is numbers. Some would say they can hear the difference. Most would not.

If I read "Moby Dick" on my computer I'm not reading words, I'm just looking at numbers. Again does it matter?

But this is not intended to be an analog vs digital debate. Both techniques have their merits, advantages and disadvantages. I'm just wondering what those people who long promoted the choice of the "right film for the right job" feel now that they have switched to digital (as many have). For example there are quite a few nature photographers shooting with the Canon D30. Previously they'd shoot nothing but Velvia and Provia 100F. No 400 speed film (they'd rather push Provia F by 2 stops), no Kodachrome, No Agfachrome or Konicachrome. No Sensia or Ektachrome. Do they just not worry about color etc. anymore?

To add to what Jeremy said, I too think these issues will develop as digital develops. Right now consumers don't have a choice as to what "comes with their" digital cameras. I think later people will begin to see differences between CCS and CMOS devices. Also, let's not forget the potential role of 3rd parties and the peripheral electronics that come with digital imaging. Eventually, it may become like audio eletronics (where there are not only tube versus transistor arguements, but things like: "MOSFETS versus JFET transistors," "P-channel versus N-channel," "D/A converters from Crystal Semiconductor versus those from Burr-Brown," etc.), so perhaps those who go the digital route might soon be able to switch out their sensor arrays or choose among different devices within their system to get the desired effect --just like with film. Then again, this might all be done in the software realm, whether in the camera or in the computer. Right now, I think those that choose digital do so for reasons other than those pertaining to the rendition of color, the amount of saturation, etc. Regardless of what happens, I think I'll stay with traditional film and MOSFETS. <g>

Not that long ago, digital was almost always being compared to the results possible with 35mm film. Now we are seeing most arguments comparing the superiority of medium format film sizes (with good cause). To me, this says quite a bit about how digital is entering the mainstream.

By the way, equipment hounds will always find something to argue about. Film use is not required for lively disputes.

I'd be interested in comparisons between digital cameras themselves as opposed to film vs. digital. In the video industry, at the broadcast level, there are very real differences between Sony, Hitachi, Ikegami, and Philips/Bosch cameras. Not only are the chips used in the cameras different, the electronic processing is different for each manufacturer's camera giving a decided "look" to each.

While you probably cannot see this on your home TV because of the camera setups chosen by the video techs, broadcast process, etc., if you were to put the cameras on test equipment, you would see some real differences when they are compared "out of the box."

Do these differences exist with digital cameras within the same price point range? If they do, what are the differences?

Which brings me to the another point. When are digital camera manufacturers going to give the photographer the ability to "tune" the cameras for a specific look? Things like changing the gamma, changing the black level, edge enhancement, knee point, and the myriad of other signal processing routines being run to make the final picture?

That's when I'd be really interested in a digital camera. The look you get from generating a photo with the changes made to the first generation signal has to look different than making the corrections in Photoshop, and would be much easier than playing with "levels," "curves," etc. Yeah, I know I can buy plugin filters to simulate different types of black and white film in Photoshop, but what if I want to create my own specific color film type for an entire digital shoot?

That's what I like about the film process right now. If I want a certain look I can choose soft pastels of something like Agfa Portrait 160, or the gouge-your-eyes-out color of Fuji. I can shoot roll after roll, have it processed and know the look will be consistent.

If I do that in Photoshop, it's way more work (yes, I know, I can setup Photoshop and batch process, blah...blahh...yada etc.) but the look is NOT as consistent as film and is another generation away from the original.

Uh..huh, yeah, I know, it's all 0's and 1's and the 10th generation is no different than the first. OK, run the "unsharp mask" and then look only at the blue channel. You'll probably see more noise. Run some other processes - you generate artifacts that become part of the image because of the image processing. My point, is - let me tune the camera to give the look I want with the LEAST amount of artifacts added at the FIRST generation.

To answer your question Bob, for certain applications, digital may be the best way to go (catalogs and product photography come to mind). But, for expressive, individualistic photographs - film choice IS a real consideration. There are many other factors such as lens manufacturer and lens choice - do I get those options with digital?

OK, if I pop the $40K plus for the back for my Hasselblad or 4x5 I get the lens choices - but - weeee...dawgies that'll buy a ton (maybe literally) of film and processing.

For me the best is digital. All my pictures are terrible so I can delete them all with a big smile!

Well, I think you can choose your 'film' digitally, or at least emulate what you want. Having shot with a Canon G1 for the last four months (until I leap into an affordable SLR), I find myself looking at a scene and deciding what film I would use if I had the film camera. You can adjust contrast, saturation, white balance, or whatever. It's like having Velvia or 160T on demand, even film for fluorescent lighting if there were one. Granted, it's all in-camera manipulation, and it ain't perfect, but how far off can it be now?

So is there a difference between manipulating a digital image (in Photoshop) and manipulating a scanned image (in Photoshop)? Why not scan Sensia 100 and make it look like Velvia or 160T? Does the digital image contain so much more "accurate" color information that you can manipulate it to look like anything at will whereas you can't do that with a scan from Sensia 100?

I don't see how "doing it in the camera" (digitally speaking) is any better than doing it in Photoshop. Digital manipulation is digital manipulation wherever it's done. I don't think you can "adjust" the CCD for anything but exposure. Everything else form color balance to gamma correction is done digitally AFTER the initial image capture. It may be more convenient to do it in the camera (though I'm not sure about that, given the time to scroll though menus and push those little buttons), but from a quality standpoint it gives no benefit unless maybe you're doing it before a lossy compression step. For high quality work I'd assume lossless compression would be used though.

Bob, unfortunately, you have fallen prey to exactly what I feared: pragmatism. "If I like the results..." Anyway, does my initial point make anymore sense? Don't force me to go into anymore of a phenomenological tirade than I already have. I am not trying to sway opinions.

P.S. I really don't think there is a best film. That is, of course, unless someone takes the same pictures time and time again under the same conditions (an impossibility).

People need different films to get the results they want from chemical processes. With digital, the same shot can be Velvia or Portra depending on where I set the contrast and saturation knobs in Photoshop. It can be E100S or E100SW depending on color balance settings. It can be daylight or tungsten depending on where I set the white balance. It can be color, or b&w if I hit desaturate. It can be print or slide film depending on my output device.

This is a bit of an oversimplification, probably, but largely valid. The ideal image capture chip would be high latitude/low contrast, with accurate, realistic color. That's really all you need: anything else can be done post-exposure.

Thanks, Russ. You actually defended my distinction quite well. You said the same thing I have been saying. You just have not recognized the distinction. Light, emulated by measurements and equations, is no longer light. The light coming from your computer screen does not manipulate the digitized image you are claiming to be equal to a photograph manipualted by light in a darkroom. The only way you can possibly enter any form of light emanating from your computer screen into the process is to hold a piece of photographic paper to it, expose it, then develop it.

Articulating the density of a negative does not negate the ability to further the manipulation of that negative to light striking paper. A densitometer further enhances the ability of one to achieve a desired result in process of creating a photograph. It does not Make it possible to create the print by any means whatsoever.

Everyone keeps trying to turn this into a results oriented distinction...too bad.

I don't think pragmatism in this case is particularly wrong. It's not like we are cutting off people's hands to prevent them stealing or reducing crime by enforcing a nationwide curfew. The means don't always justify the ends, but the means in the digital case are not necessarily less valid than those in the analog case.

If I want a particular image, I really don't mind how I get it. I'm more than willing to call it a ditital image rather than a photograph if the semantics bother you. It's created in the same way (by the initial action of light on a photosensitive medium), with the same care as an analog image, but the means of creation are different. It's no less valid as an image, it's just somewhat different. A tintype is different from a 35mm Velvia slide. Granted they are both analog images, but that's about where the similarity ends. My final digital print has a lot more in common with an Ilfochrome print than a tintype does with a color slide.

I don't belive there's anything intrinsicaly more noble about swishing silver chloride covered paper around in a bath of chemicals then manipulating numbers which represent the image in a computer. Yes, they are different, they require different skills,but so what. I still like the way CDs sound even if I am just listening to numbers.

But like I said before, I didn't start this out as a "digital vs analog" debate. Both are equally valid media. I'm just wondering what we might be missing in the headlong rush to embrace digital technology. If and when it can generate images indistinguishable from Velvia, Tri-X, Tmax 100, NPS, 160T, Delta 3200 and Ektar 25, I'll welcome it with open arms. Can it ever do that? Does it do that now?

Why not scan Sensia 100 and make it look like Velvia or 160T? Does the digital image contain so much more "accurate" color information that you can manipulate it to look like anything at will whereas you can't do that with a scan from Sensia 100?

I think you probably could. But not everyone wants to use Photoshop, or if they do, may not want to spend the time to make this adjustment when Velvia gives them a look they like without the effort and they've spent a lot of time learning to get good results with it.

The best film will be decided once and for all right after we settle which car is the best.

I suppose music CDs are not really music because they are made with "numbers". And those digital video cameras don't record video, only "numbers". Those DVDs you watch, just "numbers". And those 40 meg drum scans, more "numbers". To say that digital photography is nothing but numbers is outrageous. The image sensor records information based on light (duh)!

I have another question along these lines. What about after you take the picture? I recently shot my father-in-laws 80th. birthday party using Kodak Portra. My brother-in-law used his Nikon D1. I took my film to the one hour lab, had double prints made, and even ordered some reprints...everyone's happy. We're still waiting to see his shots. He says he'll email some, print some, etc...

It's much more expensive to print your own snap shots than taking them to a one hour lab. OK, forget the snapshots, even to print a high quality 8x10 or 11x14 on a home computer is expensive. I know I usually end up printing 3 or 4 until I get it the way I want it.

Film choice aside, what do you after you take your digital picture?? How do you distribute your work to everyone who wants to see it?? What if they don't have a computer??

I think by now most of us, for whatever reason, have chosen a film we like best for whatever situations we choose to photograph. By the same token, those of you who have chosen digital, for perhaps the same reasons, have chosen your medium. Is one better? Or worse? Who knows.

For me, film is my overriding choice and right now for shooting high school baseball. Personally, the film runs through an F100. At work, I'm reduced to using a Coolpix 990 for budgetary reasons. Is there a difference? A most emphatic and resounding yes. Would I choose a Coolpix 990 (or any other consumer digital) to replace my current set-up? An emphatic and resounding no. My F100 will do way more than the 990 I use and do it better.

How about a D1 or the Canon or Fuji offerings? Again, no. The main reason is economics, but quality concerns rears it's ugly head again. Will they focus and shoot as fast as my film cameras? Some folks say yes. I know for a fact the CP990 won't.

Now using the CP990 in a manner it was intended, it does a fairly good job. Not great, but pretty good. I use it mainly to illustrate the little paper I publish at work and it does fine, not great though.

For some of you, digital is the thing and that's good. For me, for the time-being, film is my choice; there is no other choice for me. That may change over time, either by necessity or choice. But for now, I'll keep using the film that works best for me and fill in with digital when I have to. For what I shoot, it is the combination that works for me now.

The only way you can possibly enter any form of light emanating from your computer screen into the process is to hold a piece of photographic paper to it, expose it, then develop it.

Man Roger, somebody should strap your ass to an E-6 production line, give you a box full of test strips, show you how to use a densitometer and the chemical mixer along with the tanks of developer/reversal bath/color developer/conditioner/bleach/fix and stabilizer, show you how to use a hydrometer, where the closet is with the respirator and chemical shielding is so you don't pass out from the fumes from caustic part B, then give you a test chart and calibrations for adding the right amount of sodium hydroxide to keep the blue line up. Then, show you how to fudge the silver recovery unit so the Department of Natural Resources doesn't slap an injunction on your business because you're polluting the local environment with heavy metals and bleach. And all this fiasco to develop a piece of film. I haven't even got to the print stage yet. I think after a month you'd welcome digital photography when you see it is a *BETTER* and *MORE DIRECT* form of image reproduction than chemical emulsion. You think screwing around with that stuff puts you in closer contact with the devine creator or something??? I have a news flash for you. Film processing is not a bunch of Oompa-Loompas from Willy Wonka and the Chocolate factory walking around, singing songs, and using bunny rabbits and teddy bears to help clean processor rollers.

Un-frikken-believable listening to these "film is truth" guys and their religion that images can only be captured with silver halide and the rest is blasphemy. Who died and gave you the power to define an art form? PHOTO-GRAPHY means "imaging by light", which bears no distinction as to how the image is reproduced. Look it up in the dictionary if you're confused. If you don't like the fact that digital technology makes sucking stop bath fumes obsolete, well, good for the rest of us that value our health and treat photography as what is is - creating images, and treat the rest as means to an ends. I feel like I'm arguing with creationists here and trying to convince them that the Earth isn't 10,000 years old. Same mentality.

To the people that claim that digital photography hasn't eclipsed medium format: scanning digital backs made by the likes of Dichomed and others defeated the reproduction capability of 4x5 film eons ago. I would suggest hanging out in electronic publishing forums and educate your-self as to current technology, otherwise, you're just being ignorant.

So what's the deal. Is film choice not really all that big a factor?

Here's a new twist that hasn't been brought up on the film thing. Note al the fights we have about neg vs slide film. Slide film, being it stores image information as decreasing levels of film density has the advantage of density range over print film. This accounts for why nature photographers like the "sparkle" of slides. However, shoot some clouds with slide films and you get clear base with no information and washed out highlights. Print film has the opposite problem. Color neg excels at portraits and dynamic range, yet compresses color information often resulting in flat looking images if you don't choose the right film and printing. We also have an industry of reversal processed B/W along with cross processed E-6 to try and gain advantages across each technology.

Boy, it would sure be nice to look in the camera and *NOT* worry about the individual film characterists and how the lab is going to handle it, yet concentrate on taking the picture. Seems that can be done with digital, being that medium is only limited by dynamic range.

I guess that explains why the most stunning images I've seen lately are from digital while all film images are starting to look like one another. To answer Bob's question, once you take the limits of film types out of the equation, you are no longer shackled, or can use film nuances as a "random variable generator" to make your images look interesting.

Answering the original question with my limited knowledge... CCDs and CMOS sensors are different. CCDs developed by different companies are, well, different. They just sense light differently -- same as film.

But there's more: before the image gets to the card or microdrive it goes through some in-camera processing. One level of processing is user-settable (white balance, gamma, etc). The first level, however, is not able to be modified by the user. The sensor's elements are processed by a proprietary piece of software and is not changeable except by the OEM programmers.

Example: A Sigma lens on a Canon D30 and a Sigma lens on a Nikon D1 will yield different color renditions, all other factors being equal (white balance, gamma, etc).

Then there's noise "grain", resolution "ISO", etc.

www.dpreview.com compares digicams in this fashion. Check it out. Or is it stevesdigicams.com? I can't remember.

I guess the quick answer is this: you permanently choose your "digital film" by choosing your digital camera. And it can be an important choice -- I don't like Sony's colors for example.

Does anyone else agree with this? Or am I too post-coffee to be coherent...

Sorry your brother-in-law is lax in getting prints, etc. But to answer your question, after I shoot (digital) I offload the images from the smartmedia or compact flash to my laptop or desktop PC. There I can edit, throw out the junk, photoslop away, etc. When the images are ready I have several choices. I can burn a CD, or copy them to a ZIP cartridge and take them in for 1 hour printing. I can also email them right away. I also use Microsoft Front Page 2000, which will make pages of thumbnails for display on the web. Often, I put photos on my web server for clients to review the same day I shoot. As far as cost for prints, Wolf Camera charges 2.99 for 8x10, .99 for 5x7, and .49 for 4x6. You can upload photos to www.wolfcamera.com 24 hours a day and request prints. Now if I need a really quick print, I can take the memory card right from my camera into say Ritz Camera, and have a print in about 2 minutes.

Roger, why repeat the same old story ? Just because one form of light recording mechanism can be mapped into numbers, does not mean that, that form of light recording is any more/less artistic/accurate then the other. There seems to be a percieved absence of charateristic flavours in terms of tonality etc in digital photography. Thus Atkins asks...since a lot of folks fussed about this while using the other method of recording (film)...is it really something to be fussed about?(as this often qualitatively described feature is absent in digital photography ).

I'm suspicious of anyone who claims to know intimately the characteristic looks of more than a dozen or so films. Not to say that nobody knows multiple films that well, but the imprecise adjectives describing film choices remind me too much of the imprecise adjectives describing wines. There's quite a bit of voodoo charlatanism in both fields, IMX. And in both fields, my strategy is to find just a few distinct choices that I know I like, and learn well when to use them. From there, I sometimes play with small quantities of varieties I'm not yet familiar with.

If your process is direct, i.e. slides viewed with a slide projector, then film choice is clearly important, as it's the only thing you get to play with. If you're making conventional (non-digital) prints, you can tweak things a bit at the enlarger, but film choice is still important, because the types of manipulations available at the enlarger are still quite crude.

But if your process is digital, much more sophisticated image manipulation becomes available. That's true whether the image was originally captured on film or via CCD/CMOS. So I'd say that, as long as the information is there, not lost in the shadows, not blocked up in the highlights, not lost in film grain, or splattered about due to unsharp emulsion, not buried in CCD noise, and not lost due to CCD quantization at insufficient bit depth, then the film/CCD choice isn't nearly so critical. However, it's sometimes hard to control the digital manipulation, and it's generally easier to do the original image capture with the right look than to change the look afterwards. So even when scanning film, it's nicer to use the film that has the characteristics you like.

Speed, grain, and sharpness will always be important film (and developer) characteristics.

Now, for my upcoming European vacation, what's the absolute best film for shooting the Eiffel tower in summertime? How about the Arc de Triomphe? And, if I got stuck and had to make a choice, would it be better to carry a little extra Arc de Triomphe film and shoot the Eiffel tower with it, or shoot the Arc de Triomphe with leftover Eiffel tower film? I'm thinking about Kodalith or an E-6 infrared. BTW, my camera is a Wal-mart disposable that I figured out how to reload.

Wow! It's amazing how many people missed the point of this question (see Bob's second comment). This questions isn't about image resolution!

The fact that a digital camera only effectively allows the user a single choice of "film" is rather concerning. It certain would be nice to have some choices. For example, if you use your digital camera for B&W photography, you are essentially throwing away two-stops of light for the color mosaic on the sensor (along with a little resolution to boot). However, in the long run digital sensors with be accurate enough to digital compensate for the same things that use film choices for now. A photographic print can show about 100 different tones. In digital, this would be 7-bits of data. Many of today's camera only have 8-bits, so there aren't very many way to print the image without leaving gaps in tonality. However, the best sensors have 12 or 14 bits of data per pixel. With the extra data, it would be possible to simulate thousand of different types of film with a single sensor. Plus, I've read about experimental sensors with much higher bit-depths (32 bits???). Simulating different film is just a matter of mapping the sensor data to intensity using a non-linear function. Actually, we've all seen the results of this technology in digital film restoration.

Well, I guess that I have had enough fun. Give me good digital camera (A D30 would go nice with my EF lenses), photoshop, a nice printer and the rest and, hey I'd be trying it as well. It is amazing how easily one can convince people that they are serious when they really are not. Take care everyone. This has only been a "devil's advocate" stance. Remember, I said I was not trying to convert anyone, not even myself. I have actually learned a great deal from the responses directed towards me. Thank you!

Bob, I am not sure how easily one will be able to mimmick the characteristics of the numerous films available. It would probably take someone with a great deal of talent to program it. And I wish I could say that I know of a film that would do everything. Heck, this is just a hobby for me.

Sorry to anyone that I offended.

Roger, if you think what I wrote supports your argument, then you didn't understand what I wrote.

Both the pigment in film and the 'numbers' in a digital file limit or define the strength and quality of light at a given point in an image. The fact that one's film and one's 'numbers' means nothing, and there is no practical distinction between them, other than what I already pointed out -- that the numbers will still be the same a hundred, or a thousand, or a million years hence, assuming the file is still around. And assuming a piece of film is still around a thousand years hence, (nevermind a million), the image contained therein will have changed. Significantly.

By your logic, the words you've written here on this thread aren't words at all, since everyone knows that words are collections of ink on paper. Why, your words here are actually collections of magnetic particles in ordered arrangements of the numbers 1 and 0, too small to actually see! And since your words aren't actually words, the meaning they convey is lost -- and so is your argument. Cheers!

I spent the last four days with the working press, all of whom were shooting digital SLR for the local paper. I asked several of the PJ's how they liked digital and how it compares to film. They all had Canon cameras with 'L' glass. Lots of it too. Every one of them said film was better, but digital was good enough for most of the newsprint stuff. What it really is, is convenient for the PE and the pre-press people. Other publications were running mini-labs in the Media Center and the turn time was 40minutes dry to dry, plus scanning. We got the memory cards into the Media Center 3-4 minutes after an event, the images were on the Macintosh display within 5 minutes. Very convenient, the price is image quality. In my opinion, shoot film and use a film scanner, then you can do digital if needed, but still have the advantages of film. Personally, I am settling on Picture CD's done at processing time (free at Wolf Camera and they use Royal paper).

Bob Atkins clarified: [This isn't analog vs. digital redux] ... I'm just wondering what we might be missing in the headlong rush to embrace digital technology.

If the noise floor is the same or lower, if the dynamic range is the same or higher, if the colour gamut is the same or larger, then we are missing nothing except the stench of fixer, et al.

Scott Eaton: [it's like arguing with creationists]

Heh.

Try arguing with the people who think vinyl sounds better than CD's, that vacuum tube amps are the best, that the skin effect is important at audio frequencies (really, some people believe this!), that hyper-expensive 99.9999% oxygen free "Monster" cabling makes a world of difference ... it's the same mind-set, just different technology/terminology, one dimensional signals, not two.

Gee Russ, according to you, all of our words would be a necessary fiction and none of our arguments worth the breath or energy used to communicate them, yours included. Hmmm...So are we all wasting our time writing any of this. Are arguments, heiarchies and privelaged positions just social constructions with no inherent value? Does any of it really matter? Is there now going to a movement toward a nihilistic photography? Russ, lighten up and read my last post.

I sure am happy that I got people so fired up about this.

I will try to keep this short in case anyone reads all the way down to here.

There are differences in the way different digital cameras handle color and resolution and there is more to it than just bit depth and pixels. Each digital camera has its own color palette. Check out the reviews at dpreview.com and imaging_resource.net to compare the cameras. Ultimately, it is a matter of personal preference, just as with film.

In my experience, I have a 35mm Nikon and an Olympus c-2020 digital camera. I have compared them side-by-side, and I get better results from scanning my slides than from the Olympus. The scans have finer detail and more accurate color. However, I still like to use the digital camera for goof-off pictures of my friends, and for any images that will only be seen on the computer and not printed.

Yow! Four answers go in as I type away ... I'll just re-emphasize:

The fact that a digital camera only effectively allows the user a single choice of "film" is rather concerning.

As long as the SENSOR's dynamic range, colour gamut, and noise characteristics exceed that of the DISPLAY (a CRT, a TFT, sublimation dye print, a piece of paper, 3 crayons and a 6 year old, whatever!), absolutely NO choice is necessary.

In fact, given these SENSOR/DISPLAY characterizations, you can even PREDICT, almost ab initio, how things will turn out in advance ... and you could even assign solid probabilities to your predictions. This is basically impossible in the analog realm unless you are willing to do a hell of a lot more work. [Truth be known, it would also be alot of work in the digital realm too, but no where near as much.]

Basically, this is called "freedom" (ie, you can degrade your images as you like, when you like, and how you like), but I guess some people just can't deal with it ... ;-)

To Chuck:

Thanks for the great info. I'm fowarding it to my brother-in-law.

I am fairly new here and got trounced once giving my opinion on Digital vs. film...but I am a slow learner so here goes.

Lets throw a little spin on the question. For instance, I haven't been into photography very long and my current cameras are a Yashica T4 Super and a Nikon FM2n with a 50mm f1.8, 105mm f2.5, and a 24mm f2.8 and a Vivitar 2800 flash. P&S $150, Fm2N $399, 50mm $119, 105mm $170, 24mm $225, Vivitar 2800 $40.00. Lets see that cost me a grand total of less than $1200 for the lot including shipping. So now I am rougly 20 percent of the way to owning a Nikon D1x body SANS LENS...the closest thing to a film based camera in terms of ability to match creative flexibility through lens changes, exposure, film selection, etc. Ok...now I need Af-D lenses to go with that.

So I swing over to Adorama and get me the D1x for $5555.95, plus $285.95 for the AF-D, 234.95 for a 50mm lens (I guess they don't make a 50mm f1.8 AF-D). Couldn't find a 105mm f2.5 AF-D as my lens is an older discountinued AI model, but my too closest choices seemed to be either the 105mm f2.8 Macro AF-D at $524.95 or the 105mm f2 AF-D at $764.95. I guess I am gonna need a Sb-28Dx to get the most out of my D1x...ok that is another $349.95. All prices except camera body are grey market. Grand total...$6955.74 to $7195.74 depending on lens combo. Lets assume that digital images are at least as good as 35mm to remove that line of arguing.

So $7200-$1200= $6,000. How much film and processing can I get for $6,000? Well lets assume I am a Velvia man...20 rolls cost me $99.80 plus + $75.00 for development with mailers + $0.68 for 2 stamps...so $188.4 for 20 rolls. So 636.9 rolls of film through my camera system for the cost of just starting out with my Nikon D1x.

So now explain to me why as a guy learning it would be better for me to go digital unless: A) Independently wealthy, or B)I am a quick enough learner where I can recoup costs from my magnificant photos within less than 18 months.

Another argument for film, particularly for a beginner, is that it forces one to think since photos aren't free. So instead of just bracketing and firing through thousands of digital images to get some good ones I have to think and learn how to control my apeture and exposure in order to get decent photos (which I admittedly haven't mastered yet).

Now I don't want to sound like Digital isn't a valuable, viable medium. If I had the money to have both my FM2n and a D1x I would definately do that. I would probably use the D1x more of the time, due to the benefits of digital...namely its speed of getting visual feedback on composition and exposure. When I needed a camera that could take a beating and endure the cold of Canadian winter ice climbing then the Fm2 would become my weapon of choice.

I guess my point is that this discussion is really academic for the majority of camera users, since only a small percent can/would throw down the dough for a digital camera system as discribed above.

Justin

The equivalent of the film in the digital age is the image sensor. They all have different properties. A pixel from a D1 is not the same as a pixel from a lowly digicam. Some sensors will give better SN ratio in low light, some will have a better dynamic range, etc.. Trouble is that if you stick a new emulsion in your thirty-year old camera, you upgrade instantly and at no cost your sensor, while this doesn't seem to be the case in the digital world. Tuan/Terra Galleria

<em>...is amazing how easily one can convince people that they are serious when they really are not.</em> Roger Shrader<p>

I agree, I do it all the time! BTW, I think your arguments are way above our heads... If something isn’t expressed in 1’s and 0’s we don’t get it, see? Everything on Photo.net, even the good stuff, is boiled down to easily differentiated nonsense, sacrificing clarity and precision in the process.<p>

<em>Basically, this is called "freedom" (ie, you can degrade your images as you like, when you like, and how you like), but I guess some people just can't deal with it ... ;-)</em> Matthew Francey<p>

Very few people can. Take a look at the utter rubbish that passes for photography in the majority of online photo galleries and photo mags. Lots are arrogant enough to say they could deal with it, and some are naive enough to honestly believe that they could, but very few actually are.<p>

To be honest, this is rather like arguing with evolutionists and big-bang proponents. In their head-over-heels rush to enlightenment, they blindly miss or deliberately avoid the glaringly obvious (like, uh, where all that intergalactic mass/energy came from...). There is a widespread notion on Photonet, propagated principally by the honourable Jeff Spirer, that the image is everything, and it doesn’t matter how you get it (sort of the opposite of Sprite®, actually). The problem with that school of thought is that it completely alienates the creation process from art. As soon as you drift towards that mentality, you can blithely use any old plug-in to create a specific film look, and it is considered just as valid as painstakingly creating the image via a lengthy creative process. Hence, when digital becomes good enough to successfully trick most folk into believing they're looking at film, there will basically be no point in film anymore, never mind particular film types. Bob Atkins is a wildlife photographer, I believe, a discipline which I don’t normally associate with art, so I have no problem with him using whatever technique most facilitates his getting an image.<p>

It’s another matter altogether when art enters the equation.

I have yet to find an ideal film for any given situation. For a while I hoped Provia 100F was the answer, but the blue shadows I get on clear days (even after using an 812 warmer) prove otherwise. E100VS works great but not with skin. Ilford Delta 3200 is nice for indoor handheld but too grainy for much else. And on and on.

As for digital, it just doesn't have the saturation of a good slide film or the detail of a good MF enlargement. Perhaps in a few years, digital will have progresed past the current status quo; right now I can spot a digital photo almost every time because it looks like it was taken with a camcorder.

Bottom line: I'm still waiting for the release of "digital film," i.e. a digital light receiver or whatever the heck it's called, shaped like a 35mm canister or 120 roll that can fit into an old camera body, thereby letting those of us with good but old optics take advantage of the digital age...

Bob-- What a huge thread! I can't read it all now, so I may be repeating some things already said. I've written a study, "Understanding image sharpness and MTF curves" on
http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF.html
Part 2 contains a comparison of digital and film cameras. I concluded that 35mm film cameras still have the edge in sharpnes, but I recently obtained some data that shows that film scanners are slightly worse than I assumed; I'll be modifying the page in the next two weeks. My likely conclusion will be that film is still sharper, but the difference is small. However, when 6 megapixel sensors become available, they will outperform 35mm film.

As to other aspects of your question, you have a choice of exposure index in the Canon D30. As you increase EI, noise increases, much like the increase in grain with film speed. Films differ from each other in several key factors apart from grain: contrast, saturation, acutance and spectral response. With digital processing you have complete control over all but spectral response, which may not be that big an issue. In the traditonal darkroom, you couldn't sharpen (unsharp mask was a rare luxury) or control saturation. Contrast control was very limited in color printing. Most of the differences between films can be achieved with digital editing. You can even make fine changes in the shape of the contrast curve.

I still use film and scan it, and I'm amazed at the quality of the prints I get. (My technique is on http://www.normankoren.com/makingfineprints.html). But when digital is a little more mature (when it's more affordable and 6 megapixel sensors are available), I'll go that route with no regrets. The color quality of some of Michael Reichmann's images is superb; it's a harbinger of great things to come. I won't miss having to select films and deal with grain, dust spots, scratches, and scanning.

I'd like to get my $0.02 in. For the past two years I have been scanning color neg--initially Kodak 400 Gold, but (because of grain!) more recently 100 Gold. A few weeks ago I sprung for an Olympus E10. I have made some stunning 12x16 pictures both from the scanned negative and the E10. Which do I prefer? THE E10! The first thing that struck me was the gorgeous tone scale from the E10 (I shoot at "normal" contrast and sharpness). The second thing that impressed me was the lack of grain. It is true that there is some noise in blue sky, but nowhere near the level that I was getting from scanned negative. (By the way, there is an interesting experiment on the web that relates obtrusive scanned grain to aliasing between the grain in the image and the scan lines of a scanner--which makes grain worse than in the original). Aside from this, the pictures have a velvety quality because of the absence of grain. (NO--they're not velvety because they're unsharp!)

I find the digital camera is liberating--it encourages doing a lot of repetitive shooting and doing a lot of experimental shooting--throw out the bad ones. I might add that if one considers photography an art form (which I do) then you can argue that beautiful art is available both from film and from digital, so maybe the difference isn't that important.

Now with respect to getting 'film quality' from a digital camera, there is a practical consideration that seems to be overlooked. I have read that it will take a 16 mpixel digital sensor to equal film quality. A 16 mpixel camera will generate a TIFF-type uncompressed file of about 48 mb. And that's a real problem, because it will take beaucoup time to transfer such an image from the sensor to the memory chip. Already, on the E10, with only an 11 mb file to move, if you shoot at TIFF resolution, you will wait at least half a minute before you can start shooting again. Of course, jpeg is available, but hey, we're talking FILM quality and I'm not sure that jpeg-ing down to a decent size for moving such big files won't subvert our ideal. But maybe some bright engineer will come up with a fast in-camera transfer for such files.

John Figueras

Unlike your hypothetical photonetter who is constantly choosing new emulsions, Bob, I use only about three or four different emulsions. Professionally I use two or three different e6 products mostly chosen on the basis of whether I am using strobe or hot lights...that is, when I shoot film. Most of my work stuff is currently done digitally -- the brand of emulsion is determined by what the client's scanner prefers. For my personal work I use 1 emulsion of black and white, 2 different emulsions of color neg. Recently I fell "off the wagon" and used a third brand of bw emulsion, but only because my supplier could not give me my preference in that specific size. I also use whatever kind of film is rattling around in the bottom of my fridge for taking snaps of my puppies -- last time I think it was Fuji or Kodak?<p>

The digital camera I use professionally cost more than many people earn in a year and resides permanantly in the studio. Its a neat toy and provides a capture that will rival film, but using it is so inconvenient and it remains tethered to a monostand and computer -- taking it on location is probably out of the question...if only becuase I would hate to take responsibility for it. I've shot a few "samples" with it for commercial clients to admire -- but I haven't really used it as a tool for art.<p>

The results from the lightphase tend to spoil one. I could never bear to use a consumer grade digital camera simply because most of the ones I have played with deliver miserable results -- the lightphase camera has set a pretty high mark, qualitywise, for me. For samples visit www.phaseone.com.<p>

I choose the films I use because I have learned to like them -- I like the way the results look. I have used the same films enough that I am very confident in what my exposure should be -- I never learned the zone system, I just shot a lot of pictures and learned how to process them so the pictures came out the way I liked. The digital is okay -- but the results look different on every single monitor and would look different output from different printers...I don't like that aspect. I also dislike the work interface of most digital cameras.<p>

I'm not against digital imagery. I use it professionally. I work with it to generate commercial samples. I even find working in photoshop to be fun. But I've been using film long enough to develop a comfort factor with it that digital can't match for me. If I am going to do something as self indulgent as make a picture simply for my own enjoyment, I'm going to make it in the manner that I like most.<p>Now -- what was the question?

I'm sorry -- I miscounted! I use <u>2</u> different emulsions of bw film.

I enjoy doing digital, I process many of my pictures in Photoshop, but I shoot film. Why? Well, I believe that the situation we're shooting gets recorded on the film much more than just in terms of exposure. The molecules of the film emulsion (and base) get influenced not only by visible light, but also by all the invisible wavelengths, brainwaves, sub-atomic particles, very soul of the subject and who knows what else. It all stays IN the film, just like the conventional image stays WITHIN the paper (ok, emulsion) rather than just glued to the surface (like ink jet or laser prints). And making the conventional print brings the negative at least close to the paper and some of the mood (the non-visual part) of the scene shot gets transferred too. It is an organic process. With digital, it is all quantized and put into a matrix grid. Image of the digital print is all second or third or fourth hand and it just captures the soul of your Stylus ot whatever you're using. But then, it is oh so convenient to shoot digital. I'd say: for the commercial work, go digital. For fine art, especially portraits, do film.

In the end, niether the film nor the image sensor matter that much. What matters is whether the person behind the camera know how to get the image they want with the materials they have.

MHO.

Roger,

So I'm guessing that you never listen to recorded "Music" because groves on a piece of cheap plastic, numbers on a CD, or magnetic waves are not "music", they are not the sound that the instrument made? What about TV? Radio? Magazines? Ink reproductions of photographs?

And how do you explain that light is stored on film as a metal or chemical rather than magic little bottles that store the photons in precise quantity and relation to each other and reality?

I can understand and fully support your choice to use whatever tools you choose to make a photograph, but are you consistent in your beliefs, or selective to just photography?

This post would read much differently, and elicit far less anger if it added "For me" to many of the statements. Then it would be valid, but as it is now, I refuse to accept it's validity for me or anyone else.

The bigger question is, "What cosmic standard defines what art is?" It there a final arbiter? Will we be thrown in a pit of fire for our failure to choose only shadow based imaging?

I truly mean no ill will, but if I am truly missing the point, I want to "see the light," as it were, and lack of answers to these questions keep me from accepting your theology.

>>Well, Bob, point well taken. Is the image that results from the digital process viewable to the light or is it recorded as numbers? Is the printing process in digital photography dependent upon light or numbers? Digital photography does not record light. It records numbers. Can you take that digital image file and further its manipulation using light? Or can you only manipulate it with numbers? Say what you like, they are not the same. A digital camera is pretty worthless without a computer to turn those numbers back into an image. Oh yeah, and that image...it has nothing to do with light, it was made with numbers. Hardly the same.

-- Rich Seiling West Coast Imaging http://www.westcoastimaging.com

A good image should speak for itself and stand on its own merit. The finished product, Marshall Macluhan not withstanding, should not tell us whether it was made digitally or from film. What is important is what the finished product is not how it was made.

Bob: I just finished on another related thread. Digital is great for those with the know, skill, art, talent and gift to do the magic on the computer. I don’t have this skill. Right now, I buy a roll of film, usually ASA 100 and load my camera. Shoot some shots of my kids and bring it to the lab. If it is just a usual roll it goes one hour, if it is important it goes to a pro lab.

The results are always great. When I shoot digital, the camera I have is a toy. It is not a battery craving Nikon D1x, Fuji Pro or Canon, but it is not a low end cheapy. Maybe someday when they are 10 megapixels for $1500 I will upgrade, until that day I see no reason to jump totally to digital.

Playing with PhotoShop and wasting paper is not my idea of fun. Playing with the kids and taking their picture is. For some it maybe and I have no problem with this – I like this because it moves the ball forward for us “late adopters.” Soon the cameras and programs will be bullet proof for the average idiot like me.

I agree with the following comments contained in this thread about digital. It costs a ton, it takes too long and it is no fun.

An analogy, pending on the horizon is digital books – many say they do not want to read a screen or tablet, they like the feel of paper. Likewise, I like to look at all the photos in hardcopy – even the bad ones. Something told me to take the picture, so unless the AF did not work or the flash did not fire, I have something to look at. When I shoot digital, I delete the file and that is it. Have you ever had someone say they like a picture you thought was terrible? With digital the picture was never seen.

So, Bob, for now let the digital guys do the work so late comers like me can reap the benefits. When the system is there and as fast, cheap and provides the benefits of film, I will spend the money to buy a real camera. Right now, a Nikon D1x or Canon would be an under used toy for me. (I understand for most pros it is not and is better than film). But I am a consumer and want to look at paper based pictures to decide what I want a reprint of - not a computer screen. Market research says my sediments are those of many others.

In the debate most have forgotten that consumers drive the world and they want hard copies right now. How many people print their emails? It may not make sense economically, but that is the way it is. So until digital can produce a hard quality print with the ease of a one-hour lab the masses will use film.

To answer your question, film choice is a factor for the masses. Low light 400 or 800 and bright light 100 or less. Fuji, Agfa, Ilford or Kodak its like Dodge, Chevy, Toyota or Ford. No winner. (I use 100 and my SB-24) Film choice can create a greater likelyhood of good prints rather than bad prints - so yes its a factor. For some in the know and with the skill - digital makes the point moot. I don’t believe that is really what you were asking.

{{I think your arguments are way above our heads}}

Actually it's the same old recycled trash I heard when the recording industry went digital and vinyl died, and those of us who've actually worked professionally with digital/analog translation (rather than just spouting like most people in this thread like they know what they are talking about) are laughing at the rest of this. Regretfully, we still have weirdos that claim their vinyl sounds better than CD because of their fear that everybody will own a CD player and not give a rip about their $1,000 turn tables or the fact that can make a silver halide print with caustic chemicals.

If something isn’t expressed in 1’s and 0’s we don’t get it, see?

You're actually about as clear as mud. Boy, if I look REAL close at my ink-jet or LightJet prints I don't see a bunch of 1's and 0's, but if I look close at a magazine print I see a discreet pattern of offset dots and circles. Of course, the same guys guys touting slide film's superiority over digital are the same ones that claim how an image reproduces in a magazine is superior over color neg or digital on conventional paper.

I've produced hundred of 16x20's from Kodak DCS capture, all of which were tack sharp, had no visible pixels or grain, and totally indistinguishable from a MF color print, but those magazine prints scanned from Velvia film with a pattern of half tone dots is superior because it's not digital. That makes a whole lot of sense.

is boiled down to easily differentiated nonsense, sacrificing clarity and precision in the process.

Sounds like your average Velvia scan on Photo.net if you as me. And do I hear you saying that digital reproduction and capture is *less* "precise" than analog? Whoa, there's something for a college electronic student to argue with you about. You of course use a vacuum tube based photometer for measuring the color/density values of your prints? Or are you mindfully oblivious to the entire, commercial photographic industry because of the confined universe of a home darkroom??Question Samuel, have you ever had to make a 1000 analog reproductions of a color or B/W print? How exactly did you keep them identical - a Ouija board?

Basically, this is called "freedom" (ie, you can degrade your images as you like, when you like, and how you like)

I call it freedom from having somebody shove their interpretations of art down our throats, which is something that's been plagueing Western Civilization for centuries.

Take a look at the utter rubbish that passes for photography in the majority of online photo galleries and photo mags.

Please pass the grey poupon....Along with self righteous art critics that claim that they know better than everybody else, and exactly what does digital photography have anything to do with low quality images on the internet?? I see both good and bad photography on the net from both analog and digital sources. If you don't like the fact that everybody can create a home page with their favorite puppy on it and express themselves to the world in whatever bizarre way they want, then please stay off the net.

(like, uh, where all that intergalactic mass/energy came from...).

Science is the pursuit of *knowledge*, not *truth*, which is another misconception by college dropouts and fundamentalists bible thumpers. Science is a process, not a static, "engraved in stone" set of rules. Same with interpretation of art.

that the image is everything, and it doesn’t matter how you get it (sort of the opposite of Sprite®, actually).

When I go to a movie, I prefer to see the actual movie and not a documentary on how it was made. If I really like the movie and curious about the technical details on how it was done, I'll maybe watch the documentary. Other photographers may care about the technical details, but your average viewer doesn't care. The fact that nobody is paying attention to your "art process" begins to border on an emotional need for attention rather than technical respect. Before the advent of DVD and Laserdisk, those same movie producers could care less about how their film was mastered to VHS crap format because the quality was so bad. Now with digital mastering, you have film directors scrutinizing the entire film to digital process because the quality is so much higher, and they can relay the colors and shadows to the audience in the manner they originally envisioned. What Samual is saying is that the film stock used in a motion picture camera is more important than the final movie on a screen. What's that about process being superior to results???

I agree with Jeff...If your photography sucks, I could care less how you got there. If it's interesting, I *might* do you the flattery of inquiring how it was done. Most photographers seem to want to copy somebody elses technique anyhow, and use their favorite idol's film and camera....you know....shoot like Ansel did. Gee, how many pictures have we seen on photo.net lately of waterfalls taken with slide film????? Digital forces you to develop your own technique and not rely on the film to think for you or create random abstraction.

The problem with that school of thought is that it completely alienates the creation process from art.

Yes, we all know that an image produced by digital means and not by gallons of photochemicals that end up in our local waterways isn't art. Actually I feel more sorry for those have have placed such limits on the creative process. Like science, art is a goal orientated pursuit.

Hence, when digital becomes good enough to successfully trick most folk into believing they're looking at film,

I've produced many, pure, digital prints that couldn't be distinguished from conventional, and I'm pretty sure you wouldn't tell either, contrary to what you are claiming. Case in point are studios using entirely digital capture backs, a couple of which do work for national food chains. Yes, Samuel, that backlit transparency of a hamburger just might be digital. The way you tell with a Dichomed capture is that the resulting 30x40 doesn't have grain, while the 4x5 shot does. Personally I find grain annoying and serving little aethestic purpose.

there will basically be no point in film anymore, never mind particular film types.

You mean photographers will actually have to start thinking about the creative process, working the camera, and judging the composition rather than let a silver halide film and paper create abstraction for you? Say it isn't so.

It’s another matter altogether when art enters the equation.

Basic math skills are required first.

This thread has strayed WAY off the question into the same old arguments about analog vs. digital - we've heard them 100 times before and we really don't need to hear them again. This is a moderated forum, you can probably expect this thread to be "pruned" so that the answers at least vaguely address the original question!

Bob, thanks for realizing the waywardness of the thread. Please use a more meaningful title next time than "What's the best film - or is it digital?" to garner succinct responses.

I think the chances of ANY digital related thread not descending into a religious war between the analogites and digitalites is slim to none whatever the title! And it is a religious war because both sides tend to argue from a viewpoint of faith rather than fact!

The question of whether the combination of a digital sensor and Photoshop can equal the saturation, contrast and speed range of available films will, I guess, be answered in time. I presume the answer will probably be "yes" at some point in the future.

Right now most people just seem to be focusing on resolution. Actually not even resolution. The focus is on the number of pixels, which though related to resolution, isn't resolution. Not all pixels are created equal.

Okay, for what it's worth, here's my $0.02 (and Bob, I'll try to stay on topic):

So what's the deal. Is film choice not really all that big a factor?

Okay, I'll no doubt get flamed for this, but I don't really think so. Film choice is a very subjective thing. I shoot Plus-/Tri-X most often (I shoot primarily black and white), simply because I like the grain it gives me. The people with whom I share my portfolio either like it or don't. Unless I am specifically shooting for a client who requests a specific kind of film, I shoot what feels comfortable, or what I want to explore that day (color/b&w/infrared). Like a previous poster wrote, we can settle this when we figure out what the best car is. I admit some bias -- e.g., I don't shoot with Giant Eagle film (for those outside of Pittsburgh, PA, Giant Eagle is a supermarket that has their own GE-branded film), but I'm always willing to try new types. Photographers with whom I have spoken who have shot digitally tell me that they usually can work around any problems they find with the resulting image -- much like the traditional print process. We all play with the final result until it matches either our memory or our artistic vision, that is, the way we want the print to look. Being able to emulate different film types, or different imaging types, doesn't seem to be that big of a deal if you know how to do back end work polishing the image.

Is digital so much better than any existing film that the point is moot?

Again, questions like this are difficult, and I can't help but say something about the whole analog/digital debate. Is airbrushing better than fingerpainting? Is Klimt better than Van Gogh? Is Ford better than Chevy? Is a MAC better than a PC? It depends on what you want to do with it. Digital is a relatively new technology, and offers many slaps and bennies. I choose not to shoot digital, simply because I just don't get the same hands-on feel as when I shoot analog. I enjoy the anticipation of a longer development process. I like having bad images in with good. Intangible things like this matter to me.

Bringing this back to the question: Concerning the quality of digital, I can't say that I can always spot a digital image. I've seen some beautiful images that I discovered after the fact were digital, but I've seen many, many more incredible analog prints. Since it is a fledgling technology, I'd like to take a few years and let some "digital masters" emerge. Only then could we see which is "better." Hey, even Stieglitz nay-sayed small, portable cameras.

Both sides can't be right can they?

Yes they can. Much of photography is personal taste -- what we shoot, what we use, how we attempt to portray reality. It comes down to the individual photographer. I hate to sound relativistic, but we aren't dealing with absolutes here. There are flaws in both systems, so, much like philosophy, religion, politics, cars, sports, etc., etc., it comes down to finding what is "better" for you. I like film. I'm comfortable with it, and I can anticipate the results that I am going to get. When I'm in the darkroom I still get a visceral pleasure seeing the image emerge in the emulsion, even though I come out stinking of fix. This system works for me, and it doesn't stop me from being wowed by a digital image at the next gallery opening.

Digital photography represents a paradigm shift in the Kuhnian sense. It presents us with new ways of seeing things, not better. As the years go by and technology improves, we will see better and better image capturing abilities. We will also see new and better film SLRs emerging. One will not necessarily supplant the other. So no, film choice isn't a big deal. Digital is different, not better. And so long as both sides can create outstanding images, they can both be right.

Well, to answer Bob's question...

For me personally, I only use a few films. I adapt my images to match the film. Since I'm not doing work for hire, it's not a big deal, I just avoid the subjects that won't look good with the films I use. I assume I will do the same with digital, when the time comes. I will just shoot what I think works with the tools I have.

Backing up a bit, despite not being about the question, and since my name was mentioned...

There is a widespread notion on Photonet, propagated principally by the honourable Jeff Spirer, that the image is everything, and it doesn’t matter how you get it

Perhaps I should clarify - from the viewpoint of the viewer, it doesn't matter. It does matter to me, because I want to know that I can get it. Maybe a good example can be drawn from music, since that comes up somewhere here. I love guitar, especially electric guitar, and I have lots of CDs with it. I really have no idea how much of it is generated, except for the most simplistic techniques. I saw Jeff Beck and I was pretty impressed and a bit surprised that he fingerpicked. But that's not the point, I keep buying the CDs (and going to shows when I can) regardless of the technique. I'm not a guitarist. It could be put through a MIDI box and work because some digital programmer knew how to get the sound or it could sound great because of some anatomical anomaly, but I don't care, if it sounds great. In this instance, I am analogous to the viewer of my photographs. I will take Bob's admonition and avoid prolonging this side discussion and leave it at that, even though there is probably more to say.

Where is the beef??

First of all, I don’t use a digital camera to capture my images. So I can’t answer Bob’s original question. It would be nice to see a direct answer to his question. People rave over velvia as if it was something sent down from on high. I would personally like to know if someone, anyone, could get the same results from digital when compared side by side with any emulsion. So………………………… If there is someone out there that has done a side-by-side comparison of digital –vs- any named emulsion, please post an example. Can one get the exact same results from digital that match Kodachrome, or Reala?? I would like to know, but show my the proof. Don't just preach!

I think one has to take into consideration their demographic and such.

Most of use here at photo.net are serious about photography, either as enthusiastic amateurs and hobbyists or working pros. HOWEVER, the majority of digital cameras sold last year went to folks who are neither.

so when we compare digital cameras to film, which digital cameras? each camera has it's own strengths and weaknesses, and since i can pretty much recreate the saturation of velvia and the warmth of provia in photoshpop with .NEF files (drool i cant wait to buy my OWN D1!) comparing the two may be moot?

for you photographers who've never worked this side of the photo counter listen to scott - he echos what the few of us trained lab techs are always thinkging :)

My personal goal is always to create a pleasing photograph. by using digital i can worry less about whether kodak's e-6 machine is up to snuff or if my RA-4 printer is balanced AND whoever is printing if i cant get to it is awake that day and i can concentrate more on my composition - something which most men at my stage of photo experience (three years) start to lose as we concentrate more on the toys and the numbers (please no flames on this).

If someone had asked me last year if i was going to buy digital i would have looked at them and said 'sha! right!'. now since getting my epson printer and epson 1640 scanner and playing with .nef files out of my store's d1 (untweaked btw, D1 needs mucho tweakage out of the box) as well as the finepix S1 (better image quality than D1, fact!) i'm convinced that for photo applications where i would need or want to scan something, it's prob best to work with a digital original. (cheaper in the long run than a polaroid back, too)

Heheh it prob sounds like poor scott eaton is a bitter man, but when you work in a photo lab and you have color blind morons telling you that your works sucks ass and they want their skin tones pink and magenta AND they yell at you when their blank film was developed - and you do this for years - everything tends to be a confrontation! Scott is my lab hero, and i swear the first thing when i seen this question was scroll down to see what scott had to say, if anything.

Scott Eaton - leading the abused lab technician revolution! rofl!!

Jeff

"So what's the deal. Is film choice not really all that big a factor? Is digital so much better than any existing film that the point is moot? Both sides can't be right can they? "

It is so far down the thread, I thought I'd quote Bob's original questions.

Both "sides" can be right. I'm not sure what compels us to "prove" that digital will or is currently superior to film in every respect other than some unexamined urge to proclaim or defend technological developments. On the other hand film needs no defense, if you are a slide show producer, or a happy amateur darkroom alchemist.

Digital may be superior to film in many ways and offer more possibilities in terms of what to do with the image and ways to process it, but there is little economic incentive for digital manufacturers to duplicate the film look in every aspect and instance. So, if you like the tri-x look and nothing else will do, well then, nothing else will do.

It all really depends on the end use. Slide shows are quite uncommon in the USA. They are very common amongst amateur photographers in Europe (and have been for 70 years and more). For these folks, digital is not yet a replacement and every physical film has a unique immediately identifiable look. Maybe some day we will have very high resolution flat TV monitors that are 6 feet wide and can be software switched to resemble Velvia, E100SW etc on demand but we are far from there.

As I shoot mostly for slide shows, I'm with Samuel Dilworth in my preference for film.

For professionals in some photographic trades, the advantages of digital are immediate and huge, namely transmittability and image processing.

For example, for the likes of Scott Eaton, and those focused on print production, digital is already superior, and the only debate is whether to have an analog link at all in the form of initial film capture. Small town newspaper journalists, to take an other example are already there. They don't need or want film.

Digital is superior to film in that it can do many of the things film can, already, and can do some powerful things film simply cannot. But it is not superior in that it cannot (yet) do everything that every film can. Film choice is a big factor, if the look of a particular film is indispensible to you.

I'm new here and relatively new to photography so I hope I don't get ripped for this, but I think most of the responses here have missed the key element to this debate.

All of the factors being discussed (film types, digital matrixes or whatever) are tools in the creative process. How one chooses to reach ones creative goals are part of the process of creating. It should be a personal choice and cannot be broken down to better or worse. If you want to argue the technicals (and it seems many do), you can do so until your blue in the face, it will not change the fact sometimes the process itself is part of the reward. If someone made a camera that you could tell exactly what to do and it would do it perfectly, on its own, every time, I think taking pictures would not be all that interesting. Whether you use film or 0 and 1's to CREATE images it is the process that is important (no pun intended)

To try and answer the question directly, I think that digital quality does not make film choice moot, but rather it shifts the focus of an important tool choice. Film requires you to make certain commitments before exposing the image, while digital allows for more freedom after the fact. Both are valid means of expressing oneself.

Hasn't everyone here ever been surprised in a positive way, by a "mistake" taken on film, or wished they could have "saved" a once in a lifetime shot after the fact?

Hope this adds something...

I can easily turn cheap Sensia into expensive Velvia in Photoshop if I'm looking for that effect. Skin tones aren't even much of an issue if you know appropriate range of color numbers, but it's still easier to start with a film that is kind to skin. For me, digital processing has greatly reduced my need for a wide variety of films. Now it mostly boils down to what speed I need.

I only process digitally though...LS-2000 scans of E-6 and C-41 into Photoshop. I don't shoot digital. Is there a digicam that will compare with Velvia for 20 second long post-sunset exposures? Seems to me that excessive noise is still a big issue with long digital exposures.

Gary Jean Heidelberg, Germany

At this present time we have more film choices than I can ever remember having. Sometimes its easier to actually shoot film than try to replicate the films characteristics in photoshop. Photoshop is a wonderful tool if you know how to use it and are willing to put in the time. There is plenty of room in the marketplace for both and anyone that shoots digital in volume knows that the time to edit and create that look for each frame is time consuming at best. At the price point of pro digital slr's i don't think a lot of people really approach that amt if using film. Thus the film market will continue for some time yet.

Yes digital is nice but there are also hazzards which must be considered like dropping that 1 gb microdrive onto the floor and having your images vaporize. I am in no way anti digital and I hope to see many more improvements and for it to one day surpass film, but it still has a way to go to compete with the bigger film not just 35mm. There are solutions today in which the digital back can equal for all intensive purposes film, but those are still as of yet at a price point which most photographers can't afford in the consumer market.

Back to the topic at hand, film choice is always a factor at present but the major films are available in so many sizes that it becomes a smaller issue. An exception to this would be the boutique films such as HIE and TXP which don't really have equivalents in other format sizes.
 

Altaf Shaikh
http://www.usefilm.com
Projects for Photographers
 
 

Bob,

The best film is Jessops Pan 400 S because it only costs £1-66 a roll (3 rolls for £4-98). Rate at 160 ASA and dev in Rodinal at 1+49 dilution (potato soup economy) for 9 minutes . At that price it has to be good.

Chris.

like, uh, where all that intergalactic mass/energy came from... Samuel Dilworth

Point taken. So, uh, where did your Creator come from?

As for the original question, no I don't think film choice or film vs. digital is of supreme importance. But I like Provia 100F; I'll stay with film until the storage and power problems associated with digital are solved because I work in remote areas. If I worked in a studio I probably would have already switched to digital.

Just how many angels CAN sit on the head of a pin? Bob Atkins
Dogbert said seven.

I bet the most popular plug-in for Photoshop would be a Velvia filter.

>> like, uh, where all that intergalactic mass/energy came from...

> Point taken. So, uh, where did your Creator come from?

obviously, from all that intergalactic mass/energy. same logic as used throughout this thread.

I agree with Scott Eaton. Film is a result of chemical engineering and digital is a result of electronic engineering. What difference does it make? Then again, rats and sea life at the other end of a labs sewer pipe are not burned by sulfuric acid waste - so electronic method may less and more controllable polluting.

Wow! This post has really grown! It would also seem that some people did not read all of my posts and flew off the handle a little early.

Bob, I actually use about eight different films. This is the number I have found to meet the different situations which I meet. Should I list them? Velvia, Provia 100F and 400F, Reala, Kodak Portra 160NC, Kodak TMX and TMY, Fuji NPH and NHG II, and Ilford XP-2 and DELTA 3200. I am in no way saying that I know the intimate details of each film, but I am aware of the different characteristics of the films that will influence the results of the shoot. For example: Would I use Velvia for a wedding? No, I choose 160NC. Well, I could go on and on. That is an obvious example. I think that what it boils down to is cost. Until I can afford all of the gear necessary to go digital, I am just going to have to know my films. I certainly don't think that I could use one film and manage to get it to look like all of those other films.

P.S. For all of you who are extremely upset by my previous "devil's advocate" play: I was not around for the intial digital debate. Have not been too interested. Just wanted to make sure that the writings of a hardliner were voiced. Me myself? Not a hardliner, not a theologian, not anti-digital, not out for blood. Peace...

001110011101010011111001001110000101110001111111001000111000110101011101111100100010111101010101011100111011101110000011100011100010010111100101011100010101011100001100100101011100101011110001001001100011001010

Steve, Nice Picture!

steve,

excellent. the intro to Iron Butterfly's 'inna gada da vida' has always been a favourite of mine. please excuse the spelling, as my teenage son long ago ripped off my vinyl collection and the 60's are a blur. as they should be. if you can remember them, you weren't there.

Wow, if I hear one more time about how current processing is polluting our waters as a valid argument I will scream. Digital has less impact on the environment how? By marketing camera bodies for planned obsolesce, thus filling our landfills every year with last years model, like we currently do with PC's? Or by having to replace, PC's, printers, and other needed peripherals every few years to support the digital format? How about the way that major manufactures will impact the environment by increasing production for all the related equipment needed. What about all the added waste from packaging and shipping? We are quickly becoming the gross definition of a consumer society. Just look at cell phones, PC's, vcr's, automobile's, and so on. Where does it all go, and at what cost? Let me ask you this, do you feel more comfortable placing the responsibility of properly handling chemicals with a small lab, or a large corporation?

Sorry about that, I had to vent.

Is film choice not really all that big a factor? To the 5-rolls-per-year photographer, film quality is exactly equal to colour saturation. And don't expect him to value accurate skin tones, good lighting, excellent composition, etc. He's been exposed to so many pink faces lit by an builit-in flash, tiny figures in front of unsharp buildings ("that's Auntie Ann in front of..."), etc., that he is unable to see quality. So how do you sell him an expensive camera? By telling him that digital is en vogue, that even pros use it, and that film production is about to end. Will he realise that his, say, 3.3 Mp P&S isn't equal to a Lightphase back? No. We Photo.netters are a small minority in our valueing good quality.

Guy's (and Girls) this is an endless dicussion. In fact there is nothing to discuss. I had a similar discussion before when audio went digital. Digital is just a new medium. As with audio, adepts will keep eating vinyl from their bulb amplified Wurlitzer juke-box and will never stop saying it is better than CD. As time goes by, they will end up in a museum...and ofcourse they were right, but who bothers?

This is also the case with film today. I have worked for many years as an electronic engineer at SONY and now I am a freelance multimedia consultant. I use photograpic gear as much as computers and video. When we all switched from 8mm film to the first video cameras, everybody was happy. Then switching from analogue video to digital we went WHOW! Photography is next. I do not see anybody changing silver plates anymore. We all use filmrolls now. Film has improved over years, but so has digital. Some years ago I held the first digital photocamera from SONY in my hand and everybody said it was a good start, but the picture was polaroid alike quality or less. Today with megapixel CCD's we get images that have higher resolutions than 4x5" film. Accept it, it's there ! Who are you taking pictures for? Your client or your self? Your client will appreciate to have instant results from digital captures (remember the polaroid success) and digital editing improves it all eliminating dark room situations and not to forget chemical waiste !Then use the Internet to send your pictures to the Moon if necessary. Some pureist will say( as with audio) a B/W tri-x pan hand developed and self-made on Ilford paper will deliver outstanding results. I will never doubt it. But we live in other times now. Time and money, you know, sometimes it is for the worst I know. But if everybody is driving a car, you will not enter the highway by horse !

Face it, film will end up in the museum one of these days. Here in Belgium, Agfa stated to stop its production of film for consumer use and focus on digital.

I cannot buy 8-track tapes neighter (some museum audio format) so my player became worthless now... At home I have a Voigtlander my mother picked-up from a German soldier during the 2nd World War, I cannot find film to take pictures with it.

For the pro film guys I say, remain in light. For the pro digital guys I say, the future is yours !

It is not a discussion about what is best. It is about evolution and standards. It is not the best that stays, remember betamax, analog reel audio tape etc...

In the mean time I am scanning my slides on a AGFA T2500 while hoping (and I am shure) prices will drop for digital gear like KODAK DCS Pro Back and others.

Do not forget the most important. Taking pictures is about passing a message, an emotion, capturing the moment. The gear is but the intermediate, like the pencil for the painter. In the end it is not important, it is the result that counts.

I guess it would be our own mind, or whichever part of the brain handles the visual information. Although highly subjective, it still records an amazing level of detail and coupled with pair of great lenses we happen to carry around all the time (if they are working as originally designed), you don't have any exposure latitude or grain problem either. You don't have to use any filters, since the atmosphere you want to present is recorded with the image (something like very advanced IX strip on APS films). Like, you don't need any warm-up filter to emphasize the cozy mood etc. Color compensation and correction is a non existing issue. The only exception might be the polarizer, if you really want to see behind that glass. But it is due to the lens, not film. Ok, so pure b&w and infrared are a bit tricky too, but that shortcoming can be modified within the brain, er, film itself (using the IX/ imagination layer). And the images get recorded in true 3D as well, so what more do you want? Now, if we could only find an efficient (non digital and pollution free) way to transfer those images for the others to see...

I've done a direct side-by-side comparison of the Canon D-30 versus Fuji Press 400 film, and the D-30 spanked the FP 400. Spanked it hard. So hard I sold my two EOS Elan 7e cameras and no longer shoot 35mm film.

So for me the answer to Bob's question (Is digital so much better than any existing film that the point is moot?) is True. Film choice is not a factor at all. At least for my purposes. What I'm doing for a living fits well in the confines of what digital does best. I'm saving thousands of dollars per year on film and processing, I'm using the digital camera within its specified environmental conditions, and I'm shooting in strong enough light that using autofocus is not a problem.

Digital's limitations? Canon says not to use the D-30 below freezing or above 105 degrees F. That's fine for motorsports, but pretty limiting for landscape photography. Other limitations? I'm thinking...

That's about it. Except for the cost factors one person delineated way above, I see no reason to own a 35mm camera.

Amen, to the specious pollution argument. The last calc I saw on computers - they averaged over 7 pounds of lead in each one plus a variety of other metals. That's it boys - keep throwing that polyvinlychloride and heavy metal into the landfill while decrying the pollution caused by chemical photo processing.

And then there's the hilarious music/CD analogy. Hey - most of the musical instrument amps use TUBES. Ditto the preamps in the recording studio and most of studio vocal microphones. All that really old fashioned analog stuff generating the soundwaves for your high-tech CD's 0's and 1's. Which, upon examination get turned back into an analog voltage applied to a speaker coil/magnet assembly to move the cone. The 0's and 1's were just a convienent packaging medium - no more.

I have said this previously, and I'll continue saying it - right now, digital is way too expensive for the results you get when compared to film processes.

I keep hearing about "10 megapixel imagers," hhaaaaaaaa....show me one I can buy today for $2,000. Don't care about tomorrow or next year that's all speculation and fantasy. Heck, I might win the lottery too and then cost won't be a problem.

What if I had my 10 megapixel imager? Just how do I store the raw image from it? Schlep my portable computer into the field with lots of backup batteries? Or do I get the solar powered model? Let's see. I have the computer in a backpack plugged into the camera? Oh, wait, let me set the backpack down...oops forgot to unplug the camera dang..I'm all tangled up in the cord. OK. Got the backpack on the ground, plugged the camera back in...now...oh sh** the photo's gone.

Nope. Not me. Not right now. I'll take the camera of my choice with the film of my choice with the lens of my choice and make the photo I want. Lots of choices, lots of possibilities, no worries .... only constrained by what I can't imagine - and I can produce anything I can imagine.

To get back to the actual question....

Thanks Darron for an actual data point (the first?)! I can see no basic reason why any film's characteristics couldn't be simulated in Photoshop. Just to take the B&W case, if you have all the data and you know the response function of the CCD, then it's simple to write a transfer function which will modify the CCD data to emulate the characteritic curve of your favorite film (Tmax 100 or Tri-X for example). I presume this should also be the case for color, though somewhat more data manipulation may be needed.

However, I know, for example, that it's very difficult to scan Kodachrome, tweak it in photoshop and make it look like Velvia. I'm not sure if this is a limitation of the scan, my image manipulation skills or some sort of fundamental limitation. I suspect it's not the latter though.

"..., if you have all the data and you know the response function of the CCD..."

Ahhh...Bob? That's the whole problem. Just how do you get the transfer function of the imager (you're assuming it's a CCD) - and you've forgotten the the preamp gain and correction. Write the manufacturer? Sure. That's why I'd like the control at the camera. You might be suprised at the difference between signal processing (which is what I'm talking about)prior to recording versus software processing of a prerecorded image.

I had three very intense years of doing this through an army project, and really, there is a difference. I worked with a brilliant software engineer who wrote all the image processing software and algorithms to run on a $250K real-time computer system. I was in-charge of the imaging systems that fed him the data (images). If I could get the images pre-processed correctly prior to software image processing, the final image looked way better than trying to make all the corrections in software. Less noise, less artifacts etc. You might want to consider that "data point."

As to Darron's "data point." I use digital cameras for a lot of different imaging functions - just not my personal work. For what Darron is doing (much like the local photo journalists) it may be the tool of choice.

If I want special effects such as multiple exposures (which I do a lot of for architectural work) or a soft focus lens how do I do all that digitally? The gaussian blur function or other functions in Photoshop don't have the same effect as an Imagon.

Also, I often take a transparency, make a black and white film mask and then hand work the film mask with retouching dyes. This effect cannot be duplicated in Photoshop. Yup, I've got a Wacom graphics tablet, the pen, the 4 function mouse, and the air brush tool. Can't get the same effect because you really cannot duplicate the look of a hand stroke with a sable brush. How do you digitally make the dyes thick or thin for different effects? This changes more than the saturation, it gives a "look" to the stroke because the sable hairs split into groups in different ways for each stroke and the dyes are applied unevenly giving a specific effect.

Photography is more than just point/shoot/evaluate the results (at least for me). Certainly digital cameras and Photoshop can push the envelope in a new direction, but I've yet to see the digital process surpass film for flexibility in image production under widely varying ranges of conditions.

Just how do you do that tri-color exposure digitally? I'm sure someone will tell me to take three separate exposures, then in Photoshop, use the blue channel for one image, green channel from the second image, and red channel from the third image. Assign RGB colors to the images, and then overlay all three images to make the final tri-color image.

And that is somehow better than standing in the field with tri-color filters and making three separate exposures onto a single frame or sheet of film? Or, is it only different?

Wow - must be a slow day on photo.net...

<em>"Just how do you get the transfer function of the imager"</em> <p> Well, for B&W you shoot an image of a reference grey scale and use that to derive the transfer function of the imaging chip (and associated electronics). That seems fairly straightforward. From that and the characteristic curve of a known film I don't see much of a problem in designing a filter to simulate the film response. <p> For color I'd assume there must be some sort of equivalent reference with standard colors (Macbeth color chart)? Though it's going to be a lot more complex, I don't see any theoretical problem in then designing a color film simulation "filter" by the same methodology. Of course the difference between theory and practice is what counts!

No Bob, what you've gotten is the output of the entire camera system including the processing electronics - not the transfer function of the chip.

Just for fun, I sent this problem over to my image processing friend who replied -

"Well, if you really know before hand what film you want to simulate, then I guess having the camera do it would be easier. Otherwise, you would want the camera just to collect the raw data (i.e., without adding any electronic distortion that can't be undone), so you could tweek it to perfection using the software of your choice.

But, after seeing your pictures, I vote for scanned-in transparencies."

>>>If I want special effects such as multiple exposures (which I do a lot of for architectural work) or a soft focus lens how do I do all that digitally? The gaussian blur function or other functions in Photoshop don't have the same effect as an Imagon.

Couldn't you write a single layer neural network (composed of an input and output layer) to derive the transfer function from a straight picture and the same picture through a soft focus lens?

No Bob, what you've gotten is the output of the entire camera system including the processing electronics - not the transfer function of the chip.

Correct, but that's what you want. You want the data as close to the source as possible, i.e. you want to calibrate againt the data you are working with. You wouldn't want to measure the output of the chip because you can't get at it. You can only access it after the electronics. That's fine of course. You apply your transfer function to the data you measure coming out of the CCD/CMOS/electonics. I actually do this stuff as part of my research, though only on a 1-D (linescan) camera array which has readout electronics but no signal processing.

BTW Soft focus effects aren't gaussian blurs of an image, which is why the gaussian blur function doesn't work! Soft focus is normally the result of spherical aberration and that can be simulated quite easily via digital processing and the summing of various layers with different degrees and types of blur functions.

Whoa - too many opinions to read so forgive any repetition. I personally hate vinyl flooring that tries to look like wood, tiles etc, when it can look like something completely different. Why limit digital capture to traditional film 'looks'? We already have greater DOF with the smaller CCDs altho this will change with some new chips coming out (I believe Pentax has a new 6MP full 35mmm format coming out - NOT vapourware, as does Contax). So I use digital for instant portrait proofing (ie check pose, expression and lighting) and use digital shots as a basis for montages etc (I have only a 2.1M camera - so no big straight enlargements. A news photog uses digital for fast turn-around for the paper. For a landscape poster I would use MF or bigger (if I had it). Digital does DIFFERENT things better than film - exploit those differences NOW rather than argue about what it CANT do. Same as different film stocks ('Velvia makes skin-tones ruddy. Will Fuji ever fix this?') Viva la difference.

In my opinion the question is very specific but borders on asking the more generalised question "To what extent is post-processing of an image successful?" That is, if we had the ultimate image-recording device, be it digital or analogue, could we just point it vaguely in the appropriate direction, from an orbiting satellite perhaps, then crop and process to get the image we want? Of course not, but let's consider it just as food for thought. Bear with me little.

Let's forget resolution, signal-to-noise ratio, atmospheric conditions, saturation limits, etc. Obviously you won't always get the perspective you want. Ok, what else is there? Let's further assume that we are rather limited in what we can record about the image because all we have is a rather crude CCD array or piece of film.

So, how does film work? How do CCDs work? How do our eyes work? Most of us realise or have been taught that our eyes do not "see" a continuous wavelength spectrum as such, but see only red, green and blue components from which our brain interprets an image. Thus it is enough to capture and display the RGB components in such a way that the displayed image evokes the same response from the sensors in our eyes that the original image does. However the filter dyes used in CCDs and film, and the response of any individual's eyes are all different. For example, most of us know that when you duplicate slides colour matching is difficult - you're using one set of dyes to photograph another set of dyes. Further example: for some of us there is a noticeble difference in colour response between our left and right eyes.

However for a single wavelength of light of fixed polarisation impinging on a single "pixel" (I mean to refer to CCDs and film here), we have (if I haven't missed anything) a one-to-one function re wavelength/brightness in and RGB/CMY values out. Therefore we can deduce the actual wavelength of the original ray of light and stick that into some function that emulates eg Velvia, K64, or a Nikon D1, and get their response to that ray of light out of it. We can play with exposure, contrast, saturation, everything.

So, that's what Bob is asserting, and asking for comment on.

Ok, a little way off Bob's question but almost relevant is polarisation. CCDs and film don't record it, so you have to play with it before you shoot. Why? Well, we have a many-to-one response happening and we can't deduce the polarisation from the RGB output, so we can't play with it in Photoshop or the darkroom.

What else is many-to-one? What else can't be done afterwards? Well, if we have multiple light sources impinging on that "pixel", we can't deduce them all, only a sort of weighted "average" colour. Eg, shine red and green at a white wall and you'll get yellow. But the film records it as red+green, not yellow. Now if we try and work backwards with that end-to-end response function (regardless of whether the process is digital or analogue), we'll end up assuming that the light is yellow. Then when we feed it into our Velvia plugin for Photoshop we'll get a different output than if we fed in red+green and added them because the transfer function is nonlinear.

Aha! We're getting somewhere. Now who's shining red+green at a white wall, I ask you? Well, lets say I'm photographing a scene in a forest and there are red flowers about and the forest canopy is green. Our eyes adjust, and we might adjust the response of camera system by adding in some magenta. Now we go to Photoshop/whatever and try out our hypothetical plugins. Sure the colours will shift as we try them all out, it's just like duping slides all over again. And sure, the colours will be different to those that we would obtain if we actually used the film that we were trying to emulate. How different? I don't know. I don't have a slide scanner (yet), I've not done this. Just food for thought, that's all.

We can deliberately make the differences between films bigger and more noticeable if we allow some parts to block up or burn out. Then we lose any chance of recovering a one-to-one function and the system becomes seriously nonlinear. This is noticeable eg if we use a (too) heavy warmup filter on an overcast day: expose for the scene and the clouds are still white; underexpose and the clouds come out with a distinct cast. Now we really can't go backwards without user input (at least until Photoshop is given AI abilities).

So ultimately I am suggesting that because the process is nonlinear, because saturation (here meaning blocking up and burning out) is a real problem, and because we often have multiple uncorrected light sources and reflections, we can only appoximate the effect of different films by such means. But then we can go in and make some further corrections (by hand) and get results that are probably close enough. Perhaps that's why these plugins don't exist? Perhaps the "further corrections" would outweigh the effect of the "plugin" anyway?

I'm sorry that after all this I don't have any answers. I should like to know myself and have those "data points", but regardless I think it's worth thinking about just to put digital and analogue into perspective.

May I ask a novice question ?

I am doing it semi-digital, i.e. shoting with film then scan, process and print. Under this situation, is the film choice as important as when I am doing it the traditional way ? The reason is simply cost. Instead of buying those expensive Pro-film and searching for good labs to get color corrected proofs, I can use those Kodak Gold or Fuji Superia bulk pack then just have an 1-hour lab develop the film, not even proof print is needed. While they may be contrasy and makes people's skin look ugly, I can always smooth them out in Photoshop. Am I totally off base here ?

thanks.

I'm with Caspar. Current imagers do have problems with limited gamut, dynamic range and spectral sensitivity , but those will be eroded by time and Moore's Law. The real problem is a lack of colour descrimination.

The best demonstration of this is the gossip rags. Pick up a copy of Hello or OK magazine and the paparazzi using D1s stand out like the proverbial racing dog's gonads, particularly when they're working in bad light.

Chips won't be able to mimic film exactly until they start recording more than three spectral bands - the digital equivalent of Fuji's 4th layer films. This is not impossible - astronomers and other scientists do it all the time - but I doubt it is worth the effort when you can get somthing pretty close, and just as expressive, with a 3-colour sensor. Modern B+W films can record 18 stops of light in a linear fashion, but nobody needing monochrome images with that much dynamic range bothers with film if they don't have to: the other advantages of digital are overwhelming.

We haven't carried this discussion far enough. Why not replace ALL forms of creating and image with pixelography? I mean, let's do away with paints, water colors, pencils drawing, etc. Why fool with any of these outmoded means of creatting an image when we can do it on a screen? Let's do away with all of it and replace it with pixelographic images.

I think we must face the fact that purge digital tools such as PhotoShop are not photography. They are pixelography (for want for a better term). That is not bad, it's just that it's not photography.

I have yet to meet a photographer who is flattered if somebody mistakes her for a pixelographer (ie. somebody assumes that the picture is created mostly via PhotosShop and not in the camera). I have met many pixelographer who take great pride in being mistaken for photographers. That should tell us something.

For some time I have believed that digital techniques will make film choice less important. At the very least, the differences between slide and negative film will be less. Since all frames will be scanned, adjusted for tint, contrast, cropped, etc. digitally, and then printed, I am not sure if anybody will care if the original is a slide or negative. Well maybe they will if they want to see with the human eye what was recorded.

However, I must again assert that the basic question that starts this discussion seems to assume (am I wrong?) that photography and pixelography are the same or at least very close. I don't believe that they are. I think they are two very different mediums and art forms.

That's a debate for another time and place, but as far as I'm concerned, both photography and what you call "pixelography" are two roads to the same place.

As long as the pixelographer simply applies color, contrast and density corrections (s)he is functionally doing nothing that the darkroom specialist does by chosing a filter pack, chosing a grade of paper and dodging and burning a print. Neither is a "superior" art.

I'm sure there are those who still like to build furniture with hand tools. That's fine. Personally I don't really care if the chair I'm sitting on was crafted by hand or built by a machine as long as it's still the chair I want to sit on.

I don't care if the image I see was formed by chemicals or bits as long as the print I look at is the print I want to see.

But the original question was whether digital will not only reach the level of resolution that analog does, but whether it will show more vesatility by given the user the ability to chose the "look" of the image after it is taken, rather than the current option of chosing the "look" by chosing the film. I'll admit it would be rather nice to be able to shoot one frame on Velvia, the next on Kodachrome 200, the next on TMZ 3200 and so on. Having the digital ability to do that would be at least as useful as autofocus, or even the ability to shoot digital at all. Curently it's not unusual for me to be carrying 3 camera bodies, each loaded with a different type of film. If digital could get around that issue, it really would be an advance!

Bob, it's too bad that almost everyone missed the point of your question and let it degenerate into just another digital versus film debate. Your question really was about "film choice"! Which film is best? How would that choice translate into the digital age? And if it doesn't translate, how important is "film choice" to begin with?

I believe what "film choice" is in the analog world, "color profile" will be in the digital realm. I wish someone would invent a colorprofile that allowed me to scan a Velvia slide to translate instantly into the "Kodachrome look". Wouldn't that be a great choice! People then will be debating the pros and cons of the various profiles with as much enthusiasm, as they debate "which film is best" today.

I wish someone would invent a colorprofile that allowed me to scan a Velvia slide to translate instantly into the "Kodachrome look". Andreas Carl

That’s impossible, because it would involve inventing information. The other way around would be a possibility though (Kodachrome to Velvia).

So, uh, where did your Creator come from? Karl Lehmann

You don’t think I was so stupid as to not expect that very question, do you Karl? The difference is vast, and subtle. Quite possibly too subtle for anyone of your ilk. You see, science does not leave room for anything beyond it’s fixed laws and principles, so cannot entertain the idea of an omnipotent being. So scientists have no choice but to explain where all that intergalactic mass or energy came from, which they obviously can not do and never will be able to (unless science comes up with a way of creating something out of nothing, what do you think, Karl?). People who believe that a Creator simply spoke to form everything do not have to explain why or where that Creator came from. Internal consistency is the key word, Karl. Actually, I’m surprised that one can believe in the Big-Bang theory (or evolution for that matter) and still call oneself a freethinking individual. Scott should never have started this off.

Both sides can't be right can they? Bob Atkins

Of course not, and I wish those who are trying to be hip by blithely saying "yes, they can" would get a grip and read the question again. Bob Atkins, you aren’t willing to change your mind because of anything we tell you, so why do you try to preserve that silly image of yourself sitting on the fence? If you want a certain film look, use that film, and if you use digital, quit trying to emulate film and simply manipulate the image until it has the characteristics you want. After all, according to Scott Eaton, all film emulsions are inferior anyway (by implication there is only one image "character" that is worth aiming for, and because of digital’s, ah, inherent superiority, you should use digital to get it).

This is another case of extreme simplification leading to a slipping grip of reality.

My friend is the manager of a major coffee shop chain (which we cannot name for fear of legal action) and he is puzzled about all the different varieties of coffee out there. I mean, which is the best.. Columbian.. Kenyan...Javanese??? It seems like there is a kind of coffee for every conceivable situation. I know there are arguments between coffee enthusiasts about which is the "best" but what about "Instant"? I have seen a lot of magazine advertisments that say that instant is just as good as fresh brewed coffee...even better because you can get a cup right away..right? Is instant coffee so much better than fresh-perked coffee that the point is moot? In an effort to help my friend solve this life shattering problem I devised a completely fair and scientific test. I took the richest blend of Arabian, Columbian, and Kenyan beans; had them freshly ground and brewed to perfection with the best spring water. Then I took the coffee and froze it with liquid nitrogen and then warmed it up in a vacuum (which converted the ice crystals directly from a solid to a vapour) until only pure coffee remains; then I boiled some water in an old kettle and got two cups; in one cup I put my fresh perked coffee grounds and in the other I put instant coffee. I poured boiling water over both and stirred them well and...you know what!! The instant BEATS fresh perked by a long shot!! I have advised my friend to dump all those weird perked coffee flavours in his shop and go with straight Nescafe!! He will save money and his clients will be pleased with how quickly they get their cups!

Dear Bob,

My comment is that photography remains a branch in the arts. Is the subject of aesthetics, where it is open to interpretation. The film is likened to the canvas (media) for an artist to paint the impression seen through his eyes. The media imparts certain characteristics that heighten or reduce the elements of light such as texture, contrast, colour saturation and tonality. A competent photographer would understand the preferred media to manipulate the subject to augment or reduce certain elements to best portray the latent image captured in his mind.

If Ansel Adams is around, his choice today probably would not have been any different, it would be hand prints from LF negs. As for the rest of us, we shall wander aimlessly searching for that elusive film but at the same time uncertain of our own preferences but constantly swayed by commercialism and popular opinion of the photography community.

As for myself, I shall continue to seek within myself to discover what is my preferred form of self-expression? Color or BW, neg or slide, direct or reflected image, luminescence of a computer monitor or a halogen bulb projector, 35mm, MF or LF. In the end what appease the voice of my soul.

Do continue to inspire the world with your work of the art and one day let it be the legacy for the 20th century.

High marks to Meryl for injecting both humour and ( a very relevant and insightful ) perspective into this debate.

Thanks Meryl, I enjoyed that :-)

Bob, at the risk of jumping in past the point of relevance, your question triggers a couple of thoughts. In a way, it hits on what I think is a core issue in digital imaging: the erosion that a photograph is a form of objective 'reality' captured. (Always a bit of an illusion anyway.)

Historically, the choice of film was critical when shooting transparencies to realize the kind of results you desired. Before digital scans and Photoshop, the slide was in a sense the 'final' product of the imaging process. The major subjective choices affecting color and contrast had to make *before* the image was made (choice of film, filtration, etc.).

Today, there are dozens of articles and online discussions about the relevance of things like the use of glass filters vs. color-correction in Photoshop, etc. I can even cite an article on how you can use Photoshop to create "infrared" images from scans (via manipulating the red channel and converting to grayscale).

So what is 'real' when the image is so easily manipulated after the fact? More prosaically, what does it matter what film you use if you can so easily create the results you want later? You can easily alter the digital image to simulate the brand differences between Kodak and Fuji film stocks, if you choose to.

To put this another way, in chemical-based photography, the 'taking' of the image is the primary event, at lesat with slides (creative fine printing is an exception of course). But in digital photography, the image capture only provides the 'raw material' for the process. Perhaps that is why there is no serious discussion of color characteristics or contrast differences between CCD/CMOS imagers, and all the focus is on resolution...

But haven't we reached the stage now when slides are just raw material for image processing? All magazine work is scanned, and I think an increasing number of prints are digital, both amateur and professional. The days of high volume analog printing are just about over. I'm sure it will continue as a fine art process, maybe dye transfer will come back, but I think most printing will be digital, which means most slides will be scanned, which means they can be corrected for color, density and contrast. Which in turn means that the characteristics of individual films will become less important, even for those still using film.

I don't know about that Bob. There is something about loading up the carousel and lighting up those images at 4x6 feet across the room. I could go through the hassle and expense of giving a good Powerpoint presentation of my slides, adjust the contrast, the color, etc...but hey, my slides look pretty damn good without all of that trouble. Well, at least my audience never complains. Slides are not raw data to me, they are the result. But, then again, I am not interested in making photography a profitable endeavor. But if I were a businessman, consumed with the need and desire to sell, sell ,sell, punlish, publish, publish or perish, maybe I would let the demands of others influence my ways. I hope to never be in that position. Don't worry Bob. I am happy with my results (my slides as the result with no further manipulation).

Amen to that Roger, my point exactly.

To me, the question posted by Bob concerns limits (some say capabilities) of the medium we choose to work in--this has also been alluded to by Scott and others. I say limits because, I decide to try something new if my current equipment doesn't allow me to accomplish something. BTW, the introduction of issues peripheral to the original question was only natural because there were different ways to interpret the question so forgive me if I make the same mistake.

Maybe I could respond on the limits of the discrete digital representation versus the "continuous" representation on film but sometimes I can't tell the difference when it comes to colour or density resolution. Hey, my eyes' limits are quite different than yours--but I'm sure if you try, you can probably concoct a scene that shows the difference to me.

But anyway, obviously to some people film choice matters and some do not. As Quang-Tuan pointed out, not all sensors are created alike neither--each has its own limits. So why not satisfy both camps? Instead of limiting the users with one particular CMOS or CCD technology, why not have a whole set of settings _tries_ to emulate particular emulsions given a particular sensor? I know the film recorder we have in the lab has settings for various films. If an inverse mapping is possible, manufacturers can include this capability in their cameras--say via downloadable film profiles. Will it ever be accurate? Of course not! Is the difference perceptable? I don't know. But it offers the photographer a choice within the limits of the camera's sensor technology and maybe lets them work in a way they are used to.

For those who don't think it matters, they can very well not bother about these profiles and learn the subtleties of their chosen camera's sensors. I think this has an important implication for beginners--they can at least keep one variable relatively constant while concentrating on others. I made the mistake of experimenting with various kinds of films when I really should be concentrating on my composition, etc... By imposing this limit on beginners like me, we don't have to worry about selecting film or even the care about the variations between different batches of the same emulsion (so I've read).

Futhermore, if its possible to "control" the environment, then instead of using Velva to achieve a saturated look when photographing model, could I not instead ask her to put on lots of makeup and wear a bright saturated dress and achieve a similar look with brand X? (ie. if you can't manipulate the recording medium then manipulate the recording environment).

BTW, feel free to point out where I'm wrong or I'll never learn.

I have been working with computers since the mid 70's and have done quite a bit with emulation. I have emulators for every machine from CPM, Commodore PETs and C64, Apple II, Mac Plus, Amiga...etc runable on my current machine. While it is relatively easy to emulate a lesser machine like a Commodore PET on a Pentium III, you would never be able to emulate the Pentium III on the PET. You can go from the more "greater" to the "lesser" but not from the "lesser" to the "greater". The problem with saying, "We will just have the digital CCDs emulate all the different kinds of film characteristics." is trying to go from the "lesser" to the "greater".

Bob,

>>> which means they can be corrected for color, density and contrast. Which in turn means that the characteristics of individual films will become less important, even for those still using film.

I don't think this is accurate. Films have a lot of control over how an image is recorded, and in many cases for many uses, it is impossible to "change" film characteristics in the computer.

It is easier to make a less saturated film like Ektachrome 64 or the Kodachromes look like a more saturated film, i.e. Fujichromes, Ektachrome VS, S, SW

BUT

It is very hard to tune down these saturated films to look like the softer films.

We have to account for differences in latitude, contrast, spectral response, all of which clip data when we make the photo.

I had a 4x5 Velvia chrome come back on Monday of a tree against a blank blue sky. The blue is the most fake, disneychrome blue I've ever seen! Its AWFUL! Nothing like the emotion I felt while taking the photo, and not even close to reality. I know of no way to make this film look like I had photographed it on Ektachrome 64, my choice for even non sunset blue skies. It's just too different. It would never hold up on even a 16x20 print.

Films are VERY different, and we have to learn one (i.e. shoot hundreds of rolls of it), see if we like its palette, then keep it or try another against it.

In the digital realm, as has been discussed, there will be great differences in how CCD cameras from different manufacturers cameras record light, in essence, each different model is a different film. I'm not sure if I like this prospect. It's so much easier to buy a different pack of readyload, and swap it in my 4x5 whenever the scene dictates, and cheaper!!!!

And to try to respond to your original question...

What's the best film - or is it digital?

A. There is no such thing in the universal, only unlimited different personal best films.

Rich -- Rich Seiling West Coast Imaging http://www.westcoastimaging.com

One last 2cents from me. An anti-technology artist can prick his finger with a pin and create and incredible image using his blood on a rock if it is so important for the medium to be 'untechnical'.

If I were to show ten photos of the same urban scene taken with five different films and five varying digital photos to somebody who has spent their life living in the forest without contact with civilization or technology, which one would they prefer? Would it be the one with the brightest colours, no colours, the highest contrast, the greatest amount of detail? I suspect they wouldn't have any preference at all on their own. They probabaly wouldn't have any preference until I made friends with them or enemies, and then tried to persuade them one way or the other.

What about if the photos were of their forest home? This might be different if they were homesick. They might prefer the one with most accurate colour and highest detail. What if you waited until they were happy living in the city? Maybe they would prefer a different photo of the forest.

I don't know what my point is, I just got stuck on the idea of what the best film is, and how digital images relate to this. If these preset looks can be articulated well enough, I'm sure they will be duplicated in digital with this much prodding. I'm not sure if they have enough intrinsic value to be a part of digital cameras or digital imaging software in a hundred years.

I think there is possibly a misconception about the way CCD/CMOS sensors record color and the way film records color. Neither are continuous. Both effectively have red, green and blue receptors. With film it's dye sensitivity with electronic arrays it's filters. Both record wide spectral bands, not monochromatic wavelengths.

Now it should, I think, in principle, be possible to determin the intensity of any wavelength component by measuring the realtive response of the red, green and blue sensors. This assumes that the individual response curves overlap sufficiently and that they are continuous smooth functions without inflection points. With film, you get what you get. With digital you can in principle generate any wavelength response curve you want.

Now I'm a spectroscopist, not a color CCD/CMOS designer, but I'd think it would be much easier to control the color response of a CCD/CMOS array using color filters than it would be to do the same with film.

It's not a question of color fidelity. No film gives "true" colors. But if you can get a "uniform" color response out of a CCD/CMOS array, or a least a known response, then you should be able to modify that response to emulate any type of film. There may be some practical difficulties, I'm no expert on that, but I see no real theoretical reason why it can't be done. And if it can be done (at reasonable cost), I'm sure somebody will do it. All it would seem to need would be the correct bandpass curves for the red, green and blue filters used in the solid state array (easier said than done of course. As long as each wavelength of light generates a response from two of the color sensors (R and G or G and B) you should be able to determin the wavelength and intensity of the light falling on the sensor. From there, it's easy! If you can't do it with 3 colors, there's no theoretical reason why you can't use more. You could have a 4 sensor array (analagous to the cyan layer in Fuji Reala etc.) or a 5 sensor array.

I'd guess the limitation is the market. If good old regular RGB sensors can make 90% of the people happy, why bother with the expense and complexity of giving that 90% more than they want in order to meet the need the needs of the last 10%? That only happens when you saturate the market and need a new "gimmick" to put you ahead of your competition. My guess it that will take quite a while for digital, but the marketing of the new Canikon "4 color sensor array CCD chip equiped camera" could be the digital equivalent of IS and VR lenses. Something to set you apart from the herd.

So my bottom line is that I think it's technically possible to make a digital camera with an imaging array which could, in principle, generate the data from which any film could be emulated - and that actually includes IR sensitive films since these arrays are IR sensitive! Anything from Velvia to HIE with the click of a mouse. Not a bad way to go in my opinion.

The tonal ranges offered by Provia F, E100S or RSX100 are part of what makes photography exciting. Like a painter's palette, the photographer uses these choices to set a mood or simply represent what he/she sees. Using PhotoShop to create the "look" of traditional selenium toned prints, the digital artist is trying to emulate the film-based medium. There is nothing wrong with trying to create the "Velvia look" or giving a digital file that "Kodachrome" feeling, as long as we understand that it is only a copy. If you can't tell the difference is there a difference? Does a sample of a violin sound like a violin. Yes, but for many, there is some intangible missing. <BR> I believe for many photographers it is the process that is rewarding. And that process involves choices. Taking away those choices would serve to limit the creativity of the visual artist, whether they shoot film or digital. Regarding Bob's comment about not caring how the chair was made. If we don't care about anything but the end result, that is, the image, why not use the digital zoom on our brand X digicam when we want to get a close-up? Why not crop down in camera? In a year or two, the quality will be better which will mean no more pixilated images when we use the digital zoom function. That way we would only need one lens. No more lugging those 600 f/4's around. What about it guys? You don't need those "L" telephotos anymore. After all, you can get closer digitally.

Digital zoom reduces image quality. There's no way around that one! Whether the final quality is good enough depends on the use. If you have a large enough sensor array and want a small enough print, digital zooming may well be perfectly OK. I'm not talking about a reduced quality end product. If I can tell the chair was machine made because it's inferior (in a practical sense) to the hand made chair, I'll take the hand made chair. If I can tell the digital zoom shot is inferior to a shot made with a 600mm telephoto, I'll take the shot with the 600mm telephoto.

The question of a Velvia shot vs a digital shot put through a Velvia filter depends on one question. If you didn't know how the print had been arrived at, could you tell? If you look at it and say "That's obviously digital (or analog)", then that's one case. I'm not saying one result is better than the other, but at least they'd be different. If you look at it and can't tell, that's another story.

Now there IS a difference since the method of production is different even if you can't tell, and for some people that difference will be important (though given time I'd guess that the number of people feeling that way will drop). I know that my intent as a photographer is to reproduce a particular scene in a particular way. If I can get my vision onto paper, I have no attachment to the process involved, analog or digital. I'm interested in the result, not the process.

There are some for whom the process is as important (or more important) than the result. For them I hope that analog materials are available for a long time to come and I hope that analog processes never die out totally. There's a place for crafts and craftsmen (or women) who want to continue traditional processes, just as there's a place for painters and sculptors.

But I'll take the medium which gives me the greatest flexibility and the easiest path to my goal, since I'm interested in the goal and not the path! I know not everyone will agree. Climbers are interested in climbing, not getting to the top of the mountain. I can see that. I've climbed a few times myself and I know a little of what the climber is experiencing. In this case though, I guess I'm happy to drive up the road to get to see the view!

BTW I'm still shooting film, partly because I can't justify the cost of a digital camera body yet and partly because I don't think digital technology is mature yet and I hate to buy in at the start of an emerging technology (anyone have a $1500 Apple PC with no disk drives, a $300 pocket calculator with 4 functions or a $1000 full size VHS camcorder?). One day though...

Wow, this is actually ending in an honest note on the merit of art. I can't believe that I am so oldfashioned. Digital photography will be a long way off for me. First it is entirely cost prohibitve(think of all the gear one would need to buy to set up a good digital studio). Secondly, here I am moving to Canada in four months. That would mean that I would not be able to use my camera outdoors for a great portion of the year(no digital below 35 degrees, right?). That would suck.

Sorry honey, we can't go and photograph Banff today(I will be in Calgary), it is far too cold outside for the digital to work. And now that they don't sell film anymore, as Bob predicted, noone can shoot in the cold. So much for winter Caribou, wolves and bison. Too bad. Wait! Maybe we can drag a few into the studio. Call their agents!

Boy! All these arguments remind me of the vacuum tube vs. transistor stero amps, and CD's vs. vinyl. Time will tell on this question and we'll all be better off for it. Glad I'm living in such a dynamic age when in the area I'm interested in, things keep getting better and better and cheaper and cheaper. It's going to be fun to watch.

Bob,

In response to your comment:

"But if you can get a "uniform" color response out of a CCD/CMOS array, or a least a known response, then you should be able to modify that response to emulate any type of film... I see no real theoretical reason why it can't be done... As long as each wavelength of light generates a response from two of the color sensors (R and G or G and B) you should be able to determin the wavelength and intensity of the light falling on the sensor. From there, it's easy!"

This is going to sound pedantic, and I'm not an expert in any of this, but here is my attempt to explain why it _can't_ be done, at least theoretically. I am fully aware that practically we can probably get pretty close.

Firstly, the light that impinges on the film is _not_ monochromatic, so it's strictly incorrect to determine a single wavelength/intensity. If we're talking theoretical possibilities, it is very important to realise that. Only in rare cases (such as photographing laser light) will this not be the case.

Thus the light has an associated spectrum; the broader the spectrum, the less saturated the colour will appear to our eyes. This is a real effect and not confined to "theory": eg "enhancing" filters (although mainly just magenta) acheive what little "enhancing" they do by filtering out specific wavelengths of light.

An "ideal" image-recording device will record the complete spectrum impinging on every "pixel". An "ideal" CCD/film in this sense would in effect be like a two-dimensional array of spectroscopes.

Note that, as pointed out by others, the more sensors/wavelength bands you record per pixel, the more information you get about the original spectrum of light, the closer you get to the "ideal", and the more you can reconstruct if need be.

Secondly, our eyes experience colour not by determining the wavelength, but by integration of the spectrum of the incident light by the spectral response of each colour receptor. Thus we have _two_ two-dimensional datasets as inputs (the input spectrum and the response curve) and only three one-dimensional outputs (the RGB values).

If we go and change the response curves, we effectively change the integrals involved. We can't take a finite number of one-dimensional outputs and solve for the two-dimensional input. We've thrown almost all of the original information away. Therefore we can't simulate another film because we can't get the original data, and so we can't do the integration.

All we can do is assume. We can assume that all the light is monochromatic and we'll get a solution, but it _will_ be the wrong one (unless you're photographing a laser light show). We can assume a given spectrum, perhaps even different spectra for different "colours", but then the problem may be insoluble.

On a theoretical level at least, all the assumptions will probably be wrong.

So in conclusion, it can't be done. But some assumptions will likely be better than others, and may for all practical purposes be good enough, especially with a little user input.

If it's still unclear, try playing with a few graphs and doing a few integrations. If this is related to your research, it'll be pretty easy.

##

FWIW, I climb because I like climbing. Many climbs don't even get to the top of the cliff. I personally like to take nature photos because I like nature. And I like simple. Climbing is simple, slide film is simple. Sometimes it's a challenge and you have to get it right. In climbing you can miss the onsight or you can hurt yourself, in photography you can miss the moment. That makes you focus on the here and now. I'll probably have the same attitude when I go digital, but I empathise with those that are afraid that digital will cheapen the here-and-now aspect, the realism, that is such a dominant part of the context in which nature photography is viewed.

"If we go and change the response curves, we effectively change the integrals involved. We can't take a finite number of one-dimensional outputs and solve for the two-dimensional input. "

Casper, that really cuts to the heart of the matter.Worth all the other 50,000 or so words in this thread... Thank you.

Just to bang the nail further into the coffin, Casper's gotcha bites as soon as you have more than one wavelength of light present. All your optic nerve knows is that the red cones were stimulated this much and the green cones were stimulated that much. You have no way of knowing if that was because the object is reflecting yellow light or a mixture of red and green.

If I tell you that I have added two numbers together to make 152, can you tell me what the two numbers were?

One nit: the film's spectral response is already a combination of the absorbance of the sensitising dye and the reflectance of the corresponding dye coupler after development. Thus in film you lack a simple tri-colour response right from the start, and exactly mimicing, say, Velvia, is going to be hard.

It is interesting to speculate on how many bands would be needed to mimic any film, and the fact that people generally see six colours in the rainbow is a pretty good clue. Multi-band sensors with this number of channels already exist (search on 'imaging spectrograph') but they're slow, expensive and have relatively low pixel counts. Most crippling: as a general rule, good colour descrimination means either a reduced field of view, or a longer exposure time, or both.

As the readout speed of chips increases the practicality of multi-spectral photography will improve, and it is possible we will see multi-band studio cameras akin to the existing slow-scan tri-colour ones. Catalogue photography is one application where the extra colour fidelity and descrimination would be attractive.

On the other hand, emulsion technology is already evolving by adding extra layers, and through improved sensitisers which would allow many more. If you're imaging over a wide field, film may retain the edge for a while yet.

Ahem, ROYGIBIV makes seven colours, not six.

Caspar has answered the question pretty definitively. But as Bob said we are very close to the point where film is just another input. And soon digital input will be superior for almost all practical purposes.

I foresee a digital Canon with an extra dial one can set to "Velvia", "Kodachrome", "Provia" etc. Too bad I didn't think of this in time for April 1st...

Samuel, I thought I might get a rise out of you! But I think you've misinterpreted my question. It was intended to point out a (major) flaw in your logic, not as an attack on your religious beliefs. Science is not a religion. It is not received wisdom, but a quest for explanations. Its laws and theories are not "fixed", but a series of ever better approximations subject to revision. If you have confidence in your beliefs you have nothing to fear from good science (as opposed to the metaphysics often promulgated by the popular press). Many questions are simply outside its purview. That doesn't mean they aren't valid, only that it's pointless to ask them within the realm of science. If you are seriously interested in the possibility of creating "something" from "nothing" you might start with a search on "Alan Guth" or "Werner Heisenberg".

Karl Lehmann Lost World Arts

[152]

Question: because our eyes do not need a full reproduction of the dc<->gamma-ray spectrum in order to illicit the same response, of what import is it that our cameras don't record the entire spectrum down to 0.1nm resolution?

Answer: absolutely none.

As I noted above: if sensor X has a larger dynamic range, a lower noise figure, and **A LARGER COLOUR GAMUT** than sensor Y, then transforming a signal from X to Y is possible and practical.

True, when the 17-stimuli aliens from Zubenelgenubi land and observe the results of the transformation, they would perhaps feel revulsed and insulted. But we lowly humans have but 3 colour sensors in our eyes ... and our brain doesn't take much to be fooled into thinking there is more there than there really is. [cf, JPEG, PhotoCD, NTSC and HDTV and just about every other image transmission/compression system that down-samples chroma channels by factors of 2 or 4 or more, as well as the proliferation of random conspiracy theories and related nonsense ...]

Matthew, if you were right there would be no need for film companies to produce more than one colour film. The point is not whether we can sometimes fool the human eye into thinking it is seeing the same colours that existed in the original scene, but rather that once the scene has been recorded onto one medium it becomes impossible to say for sure how it would have looked on another medium with a different response. You can make good and reasonable guesses, but that wasn't what Bob wanted.

Your objection is valid for monochrome imaging, but with colour you have many variables being mapped to a few. Caspar's posts explained the problem nicely.

There is a plethora of colour films because no one has figured out how to perform the transformations with chemistry alone (or it is known, but level of control needed is exceeds that which is available).

That we can fool the eye is precisely at issue; the operative verb throughout this discussion is "look", as in "human eyeballs". So if you want a Velvia look, then you can get a Velvia look as long as your sensor covers the Velvia response. Computing the transformation is simple, applying it is even simpler. That you can't compute what Velvia would actually record doesn't strike me as a useful thing to worry about ...

About resolution: According to the Fuji data sheet on Velvia, it has a resolution of 160 lines/mm. For an image of 36x24 mm, this is a resolution of 21 MPixels. (Shannon's theorem applies to both Velvia and CCDs.) So give me a 20 Megapixel digital camera for the price of an EOS-3, and I'll switch to digital. According to some Canon people I talked to at the CeBIT fair a few weeks ago, this will take around five years. (It will be available much earlier, but still too expensive.) I would also want a "full size" CCD array.

The characteristics of each film are known. It is most definitely already technologically possible to build the "dial" that lets you select the "film characteristics" on your digital camera.

Face it, sooner or later, people using analog photo equipment will be artists, just like people doing oil paintings. There was once a time when everyone needed to have an oil painting done in order to have a picture of himself.

Casper is of course correct. I spend too much time working on lasers, so my technical mind tends to think of light as monochromatic, while my photographic mind really knows we are dealing with polychromatic light. While you can define the wavelength of monochromatic light with two sensors of differing spectral response, as Casper says, it's impossible with polychromatic light unless you have as many different spectral response sensors for each point as spectral bands you wish to identify.

Though there is no reason in principle why you can't use an arbitrarily large number of different color sensors, since in practice for most photographic purposes you don't need more than three, I doubt we'll ever see cameras with 4 or more sensors outside of the lab. The gains as far as photo imaging would be concerned wouldn't be enough to justify the extra cost and complexity.

So it would not be possible to rigorously transform a 3 color CCD image into that which exactly emulates what would have been recorded on film. However I'm not convinced that, which appropriate transforms, you couldn't make reasonable approximations in many cases. You can do a lot more in the digital domain than the analog, such things as altering the gamma of individual color channels to almost any arbitrary curve shape, using differences between the color channels and so on.

I'd like to correct a misconception of Thomas Jensen's. Fuji specifies Velvia's resolving power as 80 lines/mm for 1.6:1 chart contrast and 160 lines/mm for chart contrast of 1000:1. I found the exact definition of these measurements on http://www.fujifilm.cz/download/New_Data_Guide.pdf (long PDF download)

"The photograph (negative or transparency) of the test chart is examined under a microscope to distinguish how many lines can be distinguished per millimeter... for two types of test chart: a low-contrast chart with a luminance ratio of 1.6:1 and a high contrast chart with a constrast ratio of 100:1."

Yes, Fuji printed 1000:1 for Velvia, but 100:1 is more likely correct. The 160 lines/mm number is EXTREMELY unrealistic-- it doesn't have much to do with real images in real viewing conditions. 80 lines/mm is more realistic, but modulation transfer function (MTF) is a much better way of assessing the sharpness and resolution of film and imaging systems. If you crank through the numbers, and consider digital's other advantages like no grain, as I've done in http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF2.html, you'll find that 6MB is the approximate number of pixels where digital outperforms 35mm film.

Back to film: It seems to me that much of the film selection process involves avoiding film's weaknesses: grain, poor sharpness, limited ability to capture a large tonal range, rather than its positive artistic attributes. Differences between slide films are of course critical when slides are the final product. Not everyone wants to manipulate images on the computer.

I still use 35mm film because my goal is to produce large high quality prints, and my calculations show that 35mm film still outperforms digital (but not by much). Digital cameras with sufficient quality for my purpose are very expensive (starting around $2,000 for the Olympus E-10). Since digital cameras that outperform 35mm will appear in a year or two, I can't justify spending that kind of money now. But I'm getting ready for the big change...

Norman - I think 1000:1 is the correct number and 100:1 is a misprint. Normally high contrast charts are used to maximize the numbers. I think 1000:1 is in the ISO spec for measuring film resolution (but I don't have the ISO standard in front of me right now, so I can't be 100% sure). Of course you can't get 1000:1 from a reflection target (even getting 100:1 would be difficult). Transmission targets (chrome on glass) are used to obtain very high (1000:1) contrast ratios.

I've recently done some experiments scanning such high contrast precision chrome on glass targets in an HP Photosmart scanner. Nyquist is pretty close with a measured resolution of 45 lp/mm (maybe 50 lp/mm if you are bery optimistic and squint at the scan in just the right way) and a "theoretical" resolution of 47 lp/mm (2400 dpi).

Of course when scanning film with detail at 45 lp/mm (as compared to chrome on glass targets) the contrast is likely to be much lower than 1000:1, so a scan of a real slide won't get that much resolution. Scanning photographic images of USAF charts (which resolve up to around 90 lp/mm) at 2400 dpi only shows resolution of target groups to around 30 or 35 lp/mm. Simulations suggest that even 4000 dpi won't get all the information out of a really good good slide. You'd probably need twice that to extract the last little bit of information present.

Exactly what you need to "better" film in terms of image quality depends, I think, somewhat on the exact camera and array design. 6 megapixels is a good start and probably good enough much of the time. I think that if you wanted to equal the best 35mm lenses could do on the best color film you'd have to go a little higher, and a little higher still for the best lenses on the best B&W film.

First we had oil paints on canvas, then we had light on black and white film, then light on colour film, now we have bytes on paper. Is any one medium better than the other, perhaps the resolution of oil painting is not the same as conventional photography but it is still greatly admired by many. In the past all mediums have coexisted, is there any reason why they will not continue to coexist into the future? Back to the original question, which most have forgotten at this stage. Choice of film in photography is important and in some cases it it personal preferance, but choice of medium is definately a personal preference. Digital is a different medium.

Bob--

I've done a simulation comparing 4000 and 8000 dpi scanners, and by gosh, you're right! 8000 dpi scans can indeed extract every bit of detail from a slide; they can outperform 4000 dpi scans by at least 20% with appropriate sharpening. Of course your image must be technically perfect to take advantage of 8000 dpi. The simulation is on <br><a href="http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/Scan8000.html">http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/Scan8000.html</a>.<br> I checked other Fuji and Agfa data, and yes, 1000:1 is the standard high contrast target. I have a hard time relating it to real image sharpness and resolution; I'm a believer in MTF. By the way, Nyquist frequency is purely geometrically determined: it's half the scanner dpi: 47 lp/mm for a 2400 dpi scanner. A scanner can have response beyond the Nyquist frequency, but the response is mostly aliasing-- artifical low frequency energy. Most scanners have response that is considerably attenuated at Nyquist: MTF is around 0.2 or 0.3, not including the effects of the film and camera lens. Your test results seem to be consistent with my modeling.<p> My guess that 6MB is the number of pixels needed for digital to outperform 35mm film factors in observations by people such as Michael Reichmann (http://www.luminous-landscape.com) who believe that digital ALREADY outperforms film. My number would be higher otherwise. Of course, Michael Reichmann used a 3200 dpi scanner in his comparison-- so he wasn't getting the most out of 35mm film. I've talked myself into getting a 4000 dpi scanner. (I've been living with the 2400 dpi HP Photosmart for a long time. It works fine, but I know I can do much better.)

I've never been really convinced by Nyquist arguments about image resolution. Basically I think the Nyquist theorem says that you can reconstruct a waveform if you sample it at a rate equal to twice that of the highest frequency fourier component.

Of course we aren't looking at sine waves when we image objects (or resolution charts!). There's a large 3rd harmonic component to a square wave (bar chart) pattern. So there's "resolution" meaning you can tell there's maybe something there, and then there's "resolution" meaning you can tell what it really was!

However, all the theory in the world means little in the light of practical results. What really counts is how an 11x14 printed image looks. If 6 megapixels is enough to be indistinguishable from film then 6 megapixels is all you need, no matter what theory might suggest.

By the way, back onto the original topic of film choice, I've been playing around with some images and seem to have been reasonably successful in converting Velvia images to a "Kodachrome" look (less saturated greens etc.). Going the other way is trickier, but some shift seems to be possible. The "trick" may be to work on the individual RGB channels, working with differences between the channels and recombining them with various functions.

<i>I've been playing around with some images and seem to have been reasonably successful in converting Velvia images to a "Kodachrome" look (less saturated greens etc.).</i><p>Very interesting, but I think the important question is "why do this?"<p> It's kind of as if you were saying, "I can go into the laboratory and spend 100s of hours and produce a liquid that looks, tastes, smells (and has the same effect) as Budweiser..." I would just suggest that you spend a few bucks at the corner store for a six of Bud and be done with it. If you want the "look" of a certain film, why not just use a certain film? I haven't seen compelling evidence that, when all is said and done, that high quality digital is going to be a big money saver over film unless you are shooting as much film as a commercial catalog house -- from my own experience, unless one is shooting some exotic emulsion like scala or kodachrome, a commercial lab can have film done in a reasonable amount of time at low cost -- and since most of us here are engaged in "personal projects" -- well, deadlines are not an issue --- so, unless you enjoy changing the color palette of films in photoshop, what are the possible compelling reasons to turn emulsion A into emulsion B in photoshop? Why not just use emulsion B?

>> Of course we aren't looking at sine waves when we image objects (or resolution charts!). There's a large 3rd harmonic component to a square wave (bar chart) pattern. So there's "resolution" meaning you can tell there's maybe something there, and then there's "resolution" meaning you can tell what it really was!

Bob, what does that mean? Film can resolve a wavelength of light if one has an electron microscope?

Oh, the original question - best film. I've seen great pictures taken in NY Central park at the turn of the century. Because the photo was good I would come to believe that the film was great too, no?

William - Why would you want to change the look of a scanned or digital image? Well, because you don't have 10 different cameras loaded with 10 different kinds of film. I suppose you could unload and reload film every time you wanted a different "look", but that's not so convenient. Of course if you are shooting 4x5 you can use a different film each time - but even there you can't get Kodachrome in 4x5 sheets!

David - It's much easier to record a sine wave than a square wave and know what's on film. With a lens/film resolution of 60 lp/mm you could not tell the difference between a 55 lp/mm image of a sine wave (smoothly varying from white to black to white etc) from that of a square wave (alternating black and white bars). Both would be "resolved" in that you could see a variation, but you probably couldn't tell the sine wave from the square wave.

There is no "best" film of course, the title of this thread is meant to be somewhat ironic. The "best" film may change from shot to shot or just depend on your mood that day.

You are right, Bob -- certain emulsions are not availible in 4x5, and waiting until the roll of emulsion A is done in your 35mm camera so you can load emulsion B can be frustrating....<p> One of my questions would be "why <u>would</u> I change film so often?" I don't want to tell anyone else how to take THEIR pictures -- for me, a very small number of emulsions will suffice - thus I find my results are more controllable both in exposure and in the darkroom. I tend to like to think of my pictures in series --- if one were made on a radically different film it would probably stick out the group like a sore thumb. People who saw the group of pictures would wonder why one picture "looked different" than the other --- I do want the pictures to "look different," but not because I loaded brand A or brand B film -- I want them to look different because of where I pointed the camera... Film choice, to me, only becomes an issue when one has chosen the wrong film. I've been working with a single bw emulsion for a while now -- I feel like I have exposure and development fine tuned. I'm familiar with most of my films idiosyncracies. To use a new emulsion every day may suit some --- my interests don't lie in that direction.<p>Honestly, I don't <u>care</u> about the differences between A and B <u>after</u> I've chosen my tools and supplies unless my current tools or supplies prove themselves inadequate --- and that goes for cameras, lenses, tripods, film, whatever. To me, if it works, it works. To me, the real problems and important decisions involve what to photograph and why.

Bob: So you are saying that it is silly to give something an lpm of 60 or 55 because one cannot actually make out what the haze is composed of?

A link to an http://bermangraphics.com/press/jaymaisel.htm rel="nofollow">interesting interview with Jay Maisel about his experiences with digital cameras, which he has adopted full time. If anyone can speak authoritatively about color, he can. And if anyone can speak with authority about the digital vs. film issue in this regard, he can.

http://bermangraphics.com/press/jaymaisel.htm

"I don't see how "doing it in the camera" (digitally speaking) is any better than doing it in Photoshop. Digital manipulation is digital manipulation wherever it's done. I don't think you can "adjust" the CCD for anything but exposure. Everything else form color balance to gamma correction is done digitally AFTER the initial image capture.

Bob, the argument for "getting it right in camera" is that unless you're in a studio shooting a static subject, you've got one chance to get it right. This holds true for digital and film methods of photography.

Whether I expose a CCD or film, I still need to be an accurate photographer. If I grossly overexpose a sports action scene with a D30, Photoshop can't bring those fried pixels back, and I won't find the same action in another exposure. To paraphrase Jeff Grandy, "if you cut someone's head off, you won't find it in Photoshop."

Digital has given me a wonderful and flexible set of tools for printing extremely sharp(over 16X20) prints. I choose these tools instead of the darkroom, but I don't choose to affect my final print in any ways that wouldn't be possible (with 10 years of practice, untold paper and chemical waste and herculean effort) in a conventional darkroom.

That's why I use both: film to capture the image because recreating the curves of Velvia or Provia from a digital back is too time-consuming, and then I choose to scan my best chromes on a drum scanner. With my digital file, I can then make expressive, sharp, well matched prints on demand.

A point that might be of interest for Roger Shrader commenting above, is that whilst digital electronics do have problems with low temperatures, the camera doesn't always feel them. What I mean is that I have just gotten back from holiday in the high Arctic. The coldest day was -40 deg C. My Fuji 6900 kept working because most of the time it's in a backpack and other cases and doesn't actually get down to the air temperature. The problem came from the fact that you can only have bare hands (to operate any sort of camera) for a couple of shots at a time.

I think that it is realistically possible to use a digital camera in a cold place, and this then levels out the argument between the two film technologies.

CCD's do not at this time compare to emulsions. Furthermore, we will see (great) advances in future emulsions. The problem is noise in the CCD at light levels where good emulsions still produce clean images. HUGE file sizes at high resolutions are another barrier digital cameras have yet to breach.

Of course scanning overcomes most of the CCD problems. CCD's just can't compete in real time when it comes to image density and resolution. My scanner can achieve 48 bit 4.0 densities at less than 0.0001 ASA.

When the state of the art in digital reaches 160 lines per mm and 48 bit 4.0 densities eqiv. to 200 ASA with full 35mm format I will consider it. Going to be a long wait.

To answer Bob's original question, all we need is a spreadsheet that lists all the films in the world, along with all their characteristics, examples and standard uses, then he can choose the best film for any situation. If anyone knows where he or I can get this, please let me know, I would greatly appreciate it.

Secondly, with new cameras like the Kodak DCS Pro 14n, I think the resolution gap has gotten a lot smaller if not nil for 35mm amateurs and photo enthusiats. If some hip camera manufacturer had this elusive above mentioned spreasheet, they can program the camera's CCD/CMOS with any film you wanted to use, thus eliminating film altogether.

Besides the picture is only as good as the lens the light passes through and that person's creativity.

As it was stated I agree with the qoute earlier never use digital for clients. Digital is what I use for magazine publishing or for websites.

Point is there's not enough BITS (color) in digital cameras to compare film. They said years ago that film is equivilant to 256bit color. Aren't we now up to 16 million or something like that? If so why are people still arguing about the digital vs. film issue. With those statements being 256bit is equivelant to film, the answer should have already been here but it's not.

I sold an elan IIe that I really kick myself in the @$$ for almost 7 months from it's absence. Luckily I got into the Medium Format with a Mamiya 645Pro and a Mamiya RB67 w/ a Leaf Digital back. Comparisons look great "digital vs. film (on my monitor). Minipulation on digital is art, and film is simply a recorder or an actual subject you are shooting regardless.

Bottom line, I just stick to film for Weddings, Studio, and outdoors. With Digital I just use it for web publishing or magazine publishing. A negative may be copied but an originator can claim thier authentication with the negative. How are you going to authenticate digital photo? With watermarks? Or can we edit the photo with watermarks on photoshop? Better yet, write the edited photo to the negative.

Film is best, sorry you had to wait 5 years to find out.