Comments on Twin Lens Life ~ Fine Art Film Photography ~ Los Angeles Southern California ~ Bwright Photography: Digital vs. Film (The Real Deal) - Nikon D300 vs. ...

Thank you for comparison! It is rather interesting...

2011-08-25T08:54:28.950-07:00

Thank you for comparison! It is rather interesting that D300 with smaller 24mm sensor size has about the same sensitivity as the larger frame film camera (56mm) - for the same f-number the film had (56/24)^2=5 times more light on it (assuming that you had aperture and shutter and ISO settings the same on digital).

Since digital SLR would set their automatic exposure in such a way that the brightest image is almost full white, it is not a surprise that overexposing in DSLR will cause bright details to disappear. The CMOS/CCD sensor are rather linear in response, unlike films which have S-curve response. It would be interesting to see how both cameras behave in a deeper underexposure range (-4...-8 stops), will film still be better?

@Fran That is a very good question. There are seve...

2010-12-11T15:45:13.146-08:00

@Fran That is a very good question. There are several factors to consider when comparing a digital sensor to a film. Size really isn't one of them. If you placed film on a scale of quality, surely size does matter, but with dig. it becomes more ambiguous. Dig sensors start smaller than film, and end much smaller than film, i.e. there isn't an 8x10 sized dig. sensor. And dig sensors arent made that much larger because quality actually can drop with a larger sensor (more noise, etc). I mean when was the last time you handeled your sensor, or even met someone shooting a Med. Format sensor the way you see Hulgas used? Things that should be compared are, price points and usage. A full frame 35mm sensor is used for the same work professionally as 6x7cm film, and the price points are much steeper when it comes to dig. As we explained in our post, we compared a prosumer camera to a prosumer film. 645 (super 35) is not the best format, and Reala is not a pro film (though it is nice). You would not use this Fuji camera or Fuji film the same as a cannon 5D, rather it is a serious consumer comparison. Both are just a couple notches up the scale for their medium. Why do you conclude that Analog won? Is it because of the grain, or DOF? The points of comparison aren't relating to to size of capture, rather the dynamics of the medium. A smaller film, and a larger sensor would produce the same dynamic range and flexability. It's like saying it's not fair to compare a vinyl record to a CD, or a Blue Ray to a Lazer Disc due to size. The technologies are just so different. Common ground must be found on a much more practical basis. On the same field as the hypothetical user. Does that make more sense?

But why are you comparing a 120 analog film vs a 3...

2010-12-11T11:28:49.541-08:00

But why are you comparing a 120 analog film vs a 35 mm equivalent digital? Analog film is clearly the winner. I can´t really see the point...

You're welcome! :)

2010-07-21T08:24:50.625-07:00

You're welcome! :)

Thank you for doing this exploration. I have both ...

2010-07-21T08:05:29.855-07:00

Thank you for doing this exploration. I have both a dslr (Canon Rebel XTi) and a film (Canon EOS 630) camera. My gut and experience told me that the film produced richer prints with more depth and warmth, but my practical side is very impressed with the ease of use and lower production costs (time and money) for the dslr. Like you, before you did this experiment, I kept putting it off. I am so glad that you took the initiative. I know that both of my cameras are consumer level products (but that's what I am so I excuse myself the lack of a Professional camera - I'll never make my living in photography - just my happiness). For me, I use the film camera when I am out shooting either family members for a special occasion or when I have decided to do special projects like night-time/long exposures that I plan to enlarge and frame a gift or personal art. The digital is great for casual photos and will do in a pinch if I have failed to bring the film camera. More often than not, I lug around a rather large case with 3 camera bodies (I also have an old - yet completely awesome Pentax K-1000 student model). I find them all interesting and valuable to my enjoyment of photography so I don't think that there was ever a chance of me giving up on one format or the other, rather I just wanted to know what the real comparison was and for that a hearty THANK YOU!

Thank you! Just when I was feeling like I was the ...

2010-07-09T18:54:46.002-07:00

Thank you! Just when I was feeling like I was the only one who just didn't feel like digital was living up to my old A1! Now I wont feel guilty going back to it, and I might just buy that 4x5 Ive always wanted.

@Leonid Here are some samples of the raw files pro...

2010-06-01T15:36:44.588-07:00

@Leonid Here are some samples of the raw files processed in "Vivid mode": http://www.twinlenslife.com/2009/05/here-are-few-examples-of-more-enhanced.html

@Leonid: Vivid mode would do nothing for digital C...

2010-06-01T15:26:07.628-07:00

@Leonid: Vivid mode would do nothing for digital CAPTURE, which is what we are discussing here. Vivid is just an automated processing step after the image is captured into ones and zeros. With the processing in raw, we actually made these images as "vivid" as can be.

As far as the dynamic limits of digital being "eliminated in the next one-two years"; I have been told that for the last 8 years. It has yet to come close. The fundamental problem is capturing energy with energy. Analog will always have a unique place in the market for cleanly capturing energy with an unlimited compression of information into a smooth curve. Digital curves are inherently square, analog waves are three-dimensionally smooth.

Frankly speaking, the difference in your photos co...

2010-05-24T14:25:19.004-07:00

Frankly speaking, the difference in your photos could be eliminated by using Vivid mode in most digicams.
Sure the dynamic limits of digicams are on place. But they will be eliminated in the next one-two years, IMHO.

I always knew digital to be the BIGGEST CON in the...

2010-03-29T23:27:50.365-07:00

I always knew digital to be the BIGGEST CON in the entire history of photography. :-P

I switched to film about a year ago, and I've ...

2010-01-13T08:08:30.636-08:00

I switched to film about a year ago, and I've found it handles the harsh desert light much better (I live in Vegas). The transitions from highlight to shadow are much more gentle. It's nice to see the side-by-side comparison. Thank you so much for all the work that went into this article!

Basing on your shots, The film shots are better th...

2009-10-01T20:55:36.056-07:00

Basing on your shots, The film shots are better than the digital. I thought so. Nothing can beat a good film shot. But for camera users of today, I think the digital SLR will really be much more functional.

This is an amazing article, thank you for sharing ...

2009-08-08T12:15:23.410-07:00

This is an amazing article, thank you for sharing this information!!!

Hi Guys, Excellent post! I got your link from Pa...

2009-08-07T17:20:40.615-07:00

Hi Guys,

Excellent post! I got your link from Paul Gero's blog and just linked it from my Journal this evening!

Score another one for film - it's such a beautiful medium and has ignited a passion in me for my imagery that is fresh and very much needed.

Thanks again - just subscribed to your blog!

Best Wishes,
Michael

It's anecdotal that film handles highlight bet...

2009-06-07T23:58:00.077-07:00

It's anecdotal that film handles highlight better than digital but it's wonderful to see it side by side. Thank you for putting the time into this blog.

The big exposure differences in one of your digital series (under, right on, over) reminds me of a negative vs. slide comparison I saw a while ago which basically said that negatives capture much more dynamic ranges whereas slides don't give you much room for error-- once you over-expose, the highlights are gone. Basically, the digital output looks very similar to one expects from slides!

If I'm not mistaken, the full frame chips are the ...

2009-06-02T11:41:06.333-07:00

If I'm not mistaken, the full frame chips are the same technology as the chip in the D300 but larger. They won't give you any more dynamic range or even larger file sizes unless you get the 20+ megapixel model. And even then you still don't get any more dynamic range. And that's way too many pixels that would just slow down your work flow and fill up your hard drives with information you will most likely never need.

And the medium format back are expensive, bulky and have more noise at the usable ISOs. I think the new Mamiya 645 back (not full frame!) only goes up to ISO 800 and is super noisy. Large format digital is great in the studio at ISO 50!

My experience with b/w is the same. I use the same...

2009-05-29T14:33:27.413-07:00

My experience with b/w is the same. I use the same Fuji model and still found no digital (affordable) digital camera that can compete cocnerning tonality and dynamic range. Not sure about the dig.full frame cameras though...

Thomas